The question of which commandments in the Christian bible (both “Old” and “New” Testaments) are binding on Christians came up (again) recently. I took a quick skim through the indexes (indices) of some theology books I have (Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister McGrath; Faith Seeking Understanding by Danile Migliore and Christian Theology by Millar Erickson) but did not find any sections dealing with this question.
What term or phrase is used by theologians to describe the systematic study of how various schools of Christianity answer this question of which commandments are binding on Christians? I have seen attempts to categorize the Hebrew bible commandments into moral commandments, ceremonial commandments and judicial commandments but I am trying to find a theological (i.e. systematic review of the various schools of thought that exist within Christianity) discussion of this issue.
The issue is of particular relevance today given the penchant of those who claim to want “to return the US to being a Christian nation.” This return seems to be tied up quite a bit with the issue of how to treat the LGTBQ community.
1. Should the sexual relationships that flow from being a member of that community be prohibited by our laws?
2. Should the various partnerships that could flow from being a member of that community (e.g. marriages of lesbians) be legally recognized and protected by government?
3. Should members of the heterosexual community tell their children that it is a matter of indifference to the parents whether the child chooses to be heterosexual or part of the LGTBQ community (assuming that the issue is a matter of personal choice for the child)?
Of course the principle of applying all of the commandments from the “Old” Testatment to the Christian moral code has much broader implications than the issue of same sex relationships. So understanding in a systematic manner the various answers that various Christians have provided to this issue is important. Among other things, it can help to improve communications between (a) those who call for a return to this type of “Old” Testatment commandment and (b) those who don’t agree with either the condemnation of that commandment and/or the punishment that the commandment explicity calls for to those who violate that commandment.
Matthew 7:28-29 “the crowds were amazed at his teaching. He taught them as one with authority, not as one of their scribes”.
That is, he was not reciting the mosaic law to them, he was authorized to create and teach his own.
Matthew 28:19-20 “go make disciples of all nations … teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you”.
Not “teach them the mosaic law”.
The only thing biding on christians is what Jesus himself commanded.
Stephen said
The only thing biding on christians is what Jesus himself commanded.Which for Matthew’s Jesus meant being Torah observant.
No it certainly didn’t
Matthew’s Jesus denies that any food can make one unclean – and so negates all levitical dietary laws.
Jesus disallows divorce; he claims Moses allowed divorce, not because god told him (it wasnt that way from the beginning), but because of the hardness of hearts of the Israelites.
He says the law of an eye for an eye should is immoral and shouldn’t be followed. He rejects the OT law that oaths should be fulfilled, he says they come from the evil one.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 5:17-20
In Paul’s authentic letters he is constantly in conflict with those who claim that Gentiles who accept Jesus must be Torah observant. The so-called “Judaizers” or the “party of circumcision”.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.
– Galatians 2:11-12
brenmcg, who do you imagine the “circumcision faction” was if not James and the Jerusalem community he led? If James felt this way and Peter felt this way when confronted what are the chances that Jesus didn’t feel this way? Only gentile Christians under the influence of Pauline tradition could interpret “fulfilling” the law and the prophets as doing away with them.
Matthew seems to have in his community/audience people with differing views of the importance of the law of Moses and he seems to be trying to create a consensus or synthesis.
True, but that’s only because Jews at the time of Jesus had differing views of the importance of the Law and these controversies among Jews were never ending. But none of them, including Jesus, would have called for abandoning the Torah. Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew would doubtless have taken James’ point of view in the controversy with Paul.
Stephen said
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.-Matthew 5:17-20
Fulfill the law and the prophets. He means fulfill the prophecies in the law and prophets.
“These” commandments (Beginning of the sermon on the mount).
Matthew 7:24-26 (end of the sermon on the mount) “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock … But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man”
He is talking about his own commands – not those of Moses.
In Paul’s authentic letters he is constantly in conflict with those who claim that Gentiles who accept Jesus must be Torah observant. The so-called “Judaizers” or the “party of circumcision”.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.
– Galatians 2:11-12
He’s not in constant conflict with Peter and James – therefore they can’t be the “party of circumcision”. Peter ate with the gentiles before these Judaizers arrived and he stopped out of fear of them.
brenmcg, who do you imagine the “circumcision faction” was if not James and the Jerusalem community he led? If James felt this way and Peter felt this way when confronted what are the chances that Jesus didn’t feel this way? Only gentile Christians under the influence of Pauline tradition could interpret “fulfilling” the law and the prophets as doing away with them.
Paul himself was a non-gentile Christian so this argument holds no water. Paul was one zealous for the law who persecuted and tried to destroy the faith he subsequently joined and spread. James the brother of Jesus was executed on the orders of the high priest in Jerusalem as a breaker of law.
Josephus tells us of Jew who had been exiled as a breaker of law. So we know there were some Jews who observed the law and some who didn’t.
None of the four biographies of Jesus have him preach circumcision or any dietary laws. Who do you think is more likely to be the inspiration and founder of Christianity – a law observant Jew or a non-observant one?
@brenmcg The dated notion that Jesus of Nazareth was anything but a Second Temple Judaean (not a Jew as we define ourselves in the 21st century) is exactly that: dated. The man cannot be divorced from his cultural context: if you were born a Judaean, you were bound by the Law, the Torah. Anything Jesus says, whether about himself or the world, is grounded in his being born and raised a Judaean male before the fall of the Temple. The Torah became the accepted, normative ground of being an individual and community in that era. Jesus also must’ve been seen as a rabbi by the writers/redactors of the gospels because he sounds like the typical tanna. Scholars (like Dr. Ehrman) gave up on the abrogation shtick ages ago because it’s not supported by evidence contemporary with Jesus’s and the earliest Christians’ lived reality. Furthermore, your takes on the Christian corpus are bordering on supersessionism. Not even the Roman Catholics are supersessionists anymore. Makes sense considering supersessionism basically got my People wiped clean off Earth.
jetucker said
@brenmcg The dated notion that Jesus of Nazareth was anything but a Second Temple Judaean (not a Jew as we define ourselves in the 21st century) is exactly that: dated. The man cannot be divorced from his cultural context: if you were born a Judaean, you were bound by the Law, the Torah.
Not according to Josephus.
Paul preached against the law.
James the brother of Jesus was executed as a breaker of law.
The four biographies of Jesus claim he was convicted of breaking the law by the sanhedrin who then demanded pilate execute him.
All four biographies have Jesus preach contrary rulings to the law.
Anything Jesus says, whether about himself or the world, is grounded in his being born and raised a Judaean male before the fall of the Temple. The Torah became the accepted, normative ground of being an individual and community in that era. Jesus also must’ve been seen as a rabbi by the writers/redactors of the gospels because he sounds like the typical tanna. Scholars (like Dr. Ehrman) gave up on the abrogation shtick ages ago because it’s not supported by evidence contemporary with Jesus’s and the earliest Christians’ lived reality.
Its the only thing the evidence supports.
I’m thinking more of Mark’s views being taken over by Matthew with nonetheless other more Torah friendly elements of Matthew’s community/tradition still being included.
Sorry Robert I should have assumed your point was rather more sophisticated than I supposed. What I wonder about is how aware the author of Matthew was of Mark’s community? Or did he just have the document without knowledge of its origin? Perhaps having it passed to him by sources he considered authoritative but divorced from its context.
brenmcg you’re starting from a faith position I don’t share. Your arguments strike me as ad hoc when they’re not simply circular.
jetucker well said and welcome!
Stephen said
brenmcg you’re starting from a faith position I don’t share. Your arguments strike me as ad hoc when they’re not simply circular.
Matthew 15:11 “what enters a man’s mouth does not defile him but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him”. Therefore Matthew’s Jesus rejects all levitical dietary laws.
Would you describe that argument as faith based, ad hoc or circular?
Thanks, @Stephen! I must say that I’m somewhat surprised that Evangelicals of the literalist (or perhaps anti-revisionist) variety have infiltrated the blog. All the Evangelicals I know now and knew in my Christian days were scared to death of Dr. Ehrman. Oh well; I guess it’s impossible to escape them.
Matthew 15:11 “what enters a man’s mouth does not defile him but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him”. Therefore Matthew’s Jesus rejects all levitical dietary laws.
Would you describe that argument as faith based, ad hoc or circular?
That is not an argument in any normative sense. It’s proof-texting with the goal of ‘aha-ing’ folks who don’t follow your belief system.
jetucker said
That is not an argument in any normative sense. It’s proof-texting with the goal of ‘aha-ing’ folks who don’t follow your belief system.
No its quoting Jesus and drawing the same conclusion as a first century christian writer. As Robert references above “Mark’s comment on Jesus making all foods clean“
Mark 7:19 “since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer (Thus purifying all foods)”
Robert said
Not necessarily. Matthew specifically removes Mark’s comment on Jesus making all foods clean and he adds a summary conclusion that focuses the whole discussion of the issue of eating with unwashed hands does not defile. Some Jewish interpreters therefore interpret the whole discussion along those lines, assuming that of course Jesus was not speaking in absolute terms which would overturn dietary laws. This interpretation also has the advantage of being consistent with the Matthean Jesus’ statements about no iot or tittle being removed from the law, etc.
Matthew’s Jesus is asked a specific question about eating with unwashed hands. He answers with a general point about no foods making you unclean and concludes back with the original question.
Mark adds the editorial remark and removes the concluding remark to avoid confusion that Jesus may only be speaking specifically about unwashed hands.
I must find the clip of Tobias Singer describing Mark’s comment here as “obviously” an addition to the text. He’s 100% correct.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)