The Rachael Slick question.

[robrecht]

I guess the answers to those questions depend on how seriously you view scripture. In the case of the Tanakh, there are many Jews who believe these are the literal words of G-d. It's an absurd question, then, on whether obeying the Law of G-d is moral or not. Likewise, the punishment. If G-d said in his own words that someone deserved the death penalty for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, then the answer would be yes.

I am asking you. Do you really consider it an absurd question?

[The Pixie]

Which Christians were you arguing with? The post I responded to is the first one of yours I've seen in this thread, and your post was in response to Norm who isn't a Christian.

I was responding to a point Norm made, but addressing Christians, which understandably led to confusion. My apologies for not being clear.

I don't quite understand what you're asking. For the record, I'm not Jewish, so no, I don't think eating pork is a sin.

See my response to Mountain above.

A lot of questions here lumped together. As in Judaism, you'll probably find a variety of opinions on the subject. So, rather than speaking for Christians in general, I'll speak on what I believe. I believe that the Old Testament law is still binding, and that those who do not keep the law perfectly are at risk of eternal separation from God, BUT because Jesus was able to fulfill the law perfectly, through him ALL can find salvation. I believe that the moral laws are written in our hearts, and that those who make Christ first and foremost in their lives will naturally desire to do the moral law, and that ceremonial law was largely applicable to a specific people and place.

Can you explain what "fulfill the law" means to you. In what sense can a law be fulfilled? Can the modern law prohibiting murder be fulfilled, or the law about observing the speed limit? To me, this makes no sense.

To me, "the law" in that context means the Old Testament, as the source of the laws governing Jews, and to "fulfill the law" means to fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament.

Bear in mind Jesus was very explicit that he had not come to change the law (Matthew 5:17).

Again, a lot of this was already covered in this thread, and if you're really truly interested in the Christian perspective (rather than attempting to win arguments, as you indicated), I highly suggest reading Paul's letters on the subject in the New Testament. Romans (7 and onward), Galatians, and parts of 1 Corinthians are some great places to check.

I fully accept that Paul believed the same as you. The issue is whether that makes sense (and whether Jesus would agree). If God is eternal and absolute, why was it a sin to eat pork at one time but not another time? Why does the same not apply to murder? What about breaking the Sabbath, which was previously a sin that deserved the death penalty, and was ranked higher than murder in the Ten Commandments? What about coveting, which Paul even discusses. Is that no longer a sin? Who gets to decide?

[robrecht]

There seems to be a tradition that the Gospel writers have carried on that has Jesus openly rebelling against the Jewish leaders of his day. Hillel was considered rebellious in his day as well. Reformed Judaism follows in the tradition of Hillel, which many in the Orthodoxy consider "breaking away."

NORM

Hillel and his followers, the House of Hillel, more so than any others, were the founders of rabbinic Judaism. That's not to say there were not continuing disputes, which is quite an understatement, actually, and the spirit of the opposing House of Shammai, is sometimes extolled as the more rigorous halakah of the world to come, but I do not think that I have ever come across the view that, aside from Reform Judaism, Orthodox Jews did not consider Hillel to be Orthodox. Surely you're not saying that, are you?

[firstfloor]

What a huge difference there is between this and celebrity pastors, mega church Christianity-as-entertainment.

“I’m a very soft Calvinist. I don’t know how to think about original sin if it’s original and inherited. But if original sin means we are deeply and profoundly and endlessly out of sync with God, then it follows that we will always be transposing God into our favoured idolatry. Totalism is, in the very fact that it’s totalistic, in principle idolatrous. On 4th of July Sunday, our young associate priest was preaching and this old guy came in with an American flag, this big (holds his arms out wide), and he thought he would surprise the young priest and he said I’d like for you to carry this in when you process, the guy shrewdly said ask the rector, but then they didn’t so the guy himself carried the flag down the aisle and sat through the service holding it. It’s a perfect act of idolatry and we are all seduced.” – Brueggenmann at Q&A 1hr 13min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zMX1gfB8KQ

[David Hayward]

What a huge difference there is between this and celebrity pastors, mega church Christianity-as-entertainment.

I like Walter Brueggemann very much.

[Adrift]

I was responding to a point Norm made, but addressing Christians, which understandably led to confusion. My apologies for not being clear.

See my response to Mountain above.

Can you explain what "fulfill the law" means to you. In what sense can a law be fulfilled? Can the modern law prohibiting murder be fulfilled, or the law about observing the speed limit? To me, this makes no sense.

To me, "the law" in that context means the Old Testament, as the source of the laws governing Jews, and to "fulfill the law" means to fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament.

Bear in mind Jesus was very explicit that he had not come to change the law (Matthew 5:17).

I fully accept that Paul believed the same as you. The issue is whether that makes sense (and whether Jesus would agree). If God is eternal and absolute, why was it a sin to eat pork at one time but not another time? Why does the same not apply to murder? What about breaking the Sabbath, which was previously a sin that deserved the death penalty, and was ranked higher than murder in the Ten Commandments? What about coveting, which Paul even discusses. Is that no longer a sin? Who gets to decide?

Maybe this bit of commentary on Matthew by R.T. France will help you

Source: "The Gospel of Matthew by R.T. France, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007, pg. 183

...we might...paraphrase Jesus' words here as follows: "Far from wanting to set aside the law and the prophets, it is my role to bring into being that to which they have pointed forward, to carry them into a new era of fulfillment." On this understanding the authority of the law and the prophets is not abolished. They remain the authoritative word of God. But their role will no longer be the same, now that what they pointed forward to has come, and it will be for Jesus' followers to discern in the light of his teaching and practice what is now the right way to apply those texts in the new situation which his coming has created. From now on it will be the authoritative teaching of Jesus which must govern his disciples' understanding and practical application of the law. Verses 21-48 will go on to show how this interpretation can no longer be merely at the level of the literal observance of regulations, but must operate at the deeper and more challenging level of discerning the will of God which underlies the legal rulings of the Torah. If in the process it may appear that certain elements of the law are for all practical purposes "abolished," this will be attributable not to the loss of their status as the word of God but to their changed role in the era of fulfillment, in which it is Jesus, the fulfiller, rather than the law which pointed forward to him, who is the ultimate authority.

© Copyright Original Source

And if you actually read the letters of Paul I suggested earlier, you'll find they go to some length in answering your questions about them.

By the way, in your post to MM, I noticed you wrote:

This passage seems to say that breaking the Sabbath deserves the death penalty, and further it applies to Jews and gentiles alike:

But somehow you missed the context of which Gentiles the passage has in mind only a verse or so up:

Source: Numbers 15:22

‘But when you unwittingly fail and do not observe all these commandments, which the LORD has spoken to Moses, 23even all that the LORD has commanded you through Moses, from the day when the LORD gave commandment and onward throughout your generations, 24then it shall be, if it is done unintentionally, without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one bull for a burnt offering, as a soothing aroma to the LORD, with its grain offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one male goat for a sin offering. 25‘Then the priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and they will be forgiven; for it was an error, and they have brought their offering, an offering by fire to the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their error. 26‘So all the congregation of the sons of Israel will be forgiven, with the alien who sojourns among them, for it happened to all the people through error.

27‘Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering. 28‘The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven. 29‘You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. 30‘But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.’”

© Copyright Original Source

[The Pixie]

Maybe this bit of commentary on Matthew by R.T. France will help you
"The Gospel of Matthew by R.T. France, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007, pg. 183]...we might...paraphrase Jesus' words here as follows: "Far from wanting to set aside the law and the prophets, it is my role to bring into being that to which they have pointed forward, to carry them into a new era of fulfillment." On this understanding the authority of the law and the prophets is not abolished. They remain the authoritative word of God. But their role will no longer be the same, now that what they pointed forward to has come, and it will be for Jesus' followers to discern in the light of his teaching and practice what is now the right way to apply those texts in the new situation which his coming has created.

So far so good. France includes the prophets, correctly in my reading, as this is about what is written in the OT, which is what the law and the prophets refers to. Jesus claimed to fulfill what was written in the the law and the prophets, that which they pointed forward to, i.e, the predictions in the OT.

From now on it will be the authoritative teaching of Jesus which must govern his disciples' understanding and practical application of the law.

Well, okay, Jesus gives moral guidance. But he does so within the Jewish law. If you (or France) can show a time he ate pork, or said eating pork is okay, you have a point. As far as I am aware, Jesus' authoritative teaching was to clarify the existing law, not to overrule it.

Indeed, France seems to agree with me:

Verses 21-48 will go on to show how this interpretation can no longer be merely at the level of the literal observance of regulations, but must operate at the deeper and more challenging level of discerning the will of God which underlies the legal rulings of the Torah. If in the process it may appear that certain elements of the law are for all practical purposes "abolished," this will be attributable not to the loss of their status as the word of God but to their changed role in the era of fulfillment, in which it is Jesus, the fulfiller, rather than the law which pointed forward to him, who is the ultimate authority.

France has not said that laws are abolished, but that they are refined or clarified. Jesus has not said go ahead and eat pork, instead he has shown a deeper meaning to the laws - and that does not imply that the prohibition against eating pork is lifted.

God was quite clear that he wanted his worshiper to observe the Sabbath. If France is correct, there could be some deeper and more challenging aspects to what God wants, but why should we suppose do does not actually want the Sabbath observed, given the importance he gives it in the OT?

And if you actually read the letters of Paul I suggested earlier, you'll find they go to some length in answering your questions about them.

Romans 7 seems to be about temptation, Paul knowing how he should behave, but failing to. But Jesus has changed that. Now those who live in Jesus will be free of that temptation, and so will be able to keep to the law.

Rom 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life [a]in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, [b]weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of [c]sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The law written on paper was not enough to keep people on the right paper, but the law of the spirit is. But nothing to say the actual rules are different.

Gal 3 appears to be arguing the covenant, in the sense of God's promise, applies to all, Jew and gentile:



Not sure which bits of 1 Corinithians you mean, but I saw nothing obvious.

But somehow you missed the context of which Gentiles the passage has in mind only a verse or so up:

You worship the Jews' God, do you not effectively "sojourn" among them?

There is a practical side to the instruction in Numbers. God was not expecting the Jews to police Sabbath observance across the entire world. That was just not possible. But he did expect Sabbath observance everywhere that it was practical. Jews living outside Jewish communties, and everyone living within Jewish communities. Being a gentile was not a reason for not observing the Sabbath.

Do you think God only wants Jews and gentiles who are living in Jewish communities to observe the Sabbath, but he has no desire for gentiles living in their own communities, but who worship him to observe the Sabbath? Your argument is predicated on the absence of anything specific in Numbers refering to gentiles who worship Yahweh. That absence, hoever, is better explained as due to there being no gentiles worshiping Yahweh at that time or for centuries to come.

The other issue here is whether Sabbath observance is moral or ritual - or whether there is a difference to God. God considered it important enough to rank it higher than murder in the Ten Commandments, and to require the same penalty in the death sentence that murder warrants. And yet Christians seem to think they can cast it aside as "merely" a ritual command.

Is the command to worship no other god merely a ceremonial instruction that Christians can ignore? Of course not! So what is the difference?

[Adrift]

You seem to be working under the false impression that Christians believe the Law has been abolished. A number of Christians (myself included) have specifically stated throughout this thread that we agree that the Law has not been abolished. You may need to go back and reread this thread, because you're treading a lot of the same ground that's already been covered. Also, it doesn't appear that you understand what the word "sojourn" means, but I can't really help you there.

[Paprika]

For through the law I died to the law

Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

The Mosaic Law still exists and applies to those under it, but not to those who have died.

This isn't particularly difficult

[The Pixie]

You seem to be working under the false impression that Christians believe the Law has been abolished. A number of Christians (myself included) have specifically stated throughout this thread that we agree that the Law has not been abolished.

I am under the impression Christians believe many OT laws do not apply to them, such as the prohibition of eating pork. Have I got that wrong?

Whether you think the law is abolished or not applicable, I am not sure.

Also, it doesn't appear that you understand what the word "sojourn" means, but I can't really help you there.

There is a reason I put it in quotes. If you look at the context, you might work it out.

[Jedidiah]

I like Walter Brueggemann very much.

Count on ff to misread and warp it though.

[JohnnyP]

I am under the impression Christians believe many OT laws do not apply to them, such as the prohibition of eating pork. Have I got that wrong?

Whether you think the law is abolished or not applicable, I am not sure.

There is a reason I put it in quotes. If you look at the context, you might work it out.

Some Christians think it's abolished for everyone, others like me believe it's binding for Jews but not in whole for Gentiles per Acts 15, a similar view in Judaism who only expect Noahide. As Paul said, if uncircumcised abide that way, if circumcised abide that way.

[NormATive]

I am asking you. Do you really consider it an absurd question?

Of course I do. I don't think that scripture is anything other than mans attempt to understand the world around him.

If a person chooses to believe these words are really dictated from a divine being, then it is on them to obey those words.

NORM

[NormATive]

Hillel and his followers, the House of Hillel, more so than any others, were the founders of rabbinic Judaism. That's not to say there were not continuing disputes, which is quite an understatement, actually, and the spirit of the opposing House of Shammai, is sometimes extolled as the more rigorous halakah of the world to come, but I do not think that I have ever come across the view that, aside from Reform Judaism, Orthodox Jews did not consider Hillel to be Orthodox. Surely you're not saying that, are you?

No. In the context of his time, Hillel was controversial. Actually, he still is among the ultra-orthodox. But, they are the minority. Reformed Jews actually think Hillel a bit stodgy.

NORM

[Mountain Man]

I get that they are different. I question whether the difference is meaningful to God.

I asked about breaking the Sabbath. Is this a moral law or a ceremonial law? It is one of the big ten, and ranked higher than murder.

This passage seems to say that breaking the Sabbath deserves the death penalty, and further it applies to Jews and gentiles alike:

Numbers 15:30 But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his [o]guilt will be on him.’”
32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in [p]custody because it had not been [q]declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him [r]to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

The point it makes is that disobeying God's command is sin. If God has said do not murder, then to murder is to violate God's will and so a sin. If God says do not eat pork, then to eat pork is to violate God's will and so a sin. It does not matter it you label murder a moral issue and eating pork a ceremonial issue.

That is actually a very critical difference. You're right that they're ultimately commands from God, but not all of God's commands are unconditional. For instance, the command that husbands are to love their wives obviously doesn't apply to someone who isn't married. Similiarly, Old Covenant ceremonial laws don't apply to those under the New Covenant. Moral laws, on the other hand, apply to everybody without condition.

Now if you want to discuss which laws are moral and which are ceremonial, that's fine, but suggesting that there's no distinction between the two is ignorant.