I apologize in advance for my post being kind of disorganized.
How I view the relationship between the Old and New Covenants is decided by how I view Jesus' teaching on the law, with the idea that certain aspects of the law (the ceremonies and rituals, and things that deal with cleanliness) are pointing toward what is later fully explained in the New Testament. Jesus' teaching on cleanliness does not repeal the need to be clean - the law has not passed away, not anymore than Mario passes away when he gets a Fire Flower - but he does change what it means to be clean and unclean (this, along with Peter's vision in Acts, which tells us that Jesus has made the unclean foods clean). What are still counted as unclean are things like murder, theft, sexual immorality... etc. In the interest of taking things in their historical context, what one has to realize here is that Jesus is referring to the law of Moses for His definitions of all these things (as is Paul, really - remember, he was steeped in the law his whole life and knew and referenced it constantly). Keep in mind who He's speaking to, and their background studying the law. Specifically relating to this issue, it's easy to say that what He means here is ambiguous now, but His audience knew exactly what behaviors He referred to with the shorthand of "sexual immorality." The biggest thing to take away from this, of course, is that no one can just "be cleaner." That's where Christ comes in. But just because He frees us from sin does not mean that there is no longer such a thing as a sinful action.
That is to say, the moral law is just as present now as ever, predating and persisting through every covenant. The difference comes from our reason to obey it.
I think it's hard to draw lines between what's the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law". There's no clear indication in the OT that they're split up like that (they're certainly not delineated in the text -- moral-sounding stuff and ceremonial-sounding stuff are often mixed together in the same chapters).
So here's Matthew 5:17-19.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
But then we have circumcision and feasts and cleanliness codes and dietary rules and the Sabbath being thrown out by Paul (and some of it also being thrown out by Jesus personally). Some questions here:
- When Jesus says "these commands", is he referring to the 613 rules of the Torah, or is he referring to the commands that
he's giving at that moment?
- When he says "until everything takes place" (also translated "until everything is accomplished / fulfilled / comes to pass), is he talking end-of-the-world stuff, or could he be referring to the same thing as when he said "It is finished!" on the cross? Could that be the moment where "everything is fulfilled"?
I'm not sure where I come down on this exactly. Clearly the whole law is no longer binding on us, unless Paul (and Luke and/or Peter (and also Jesus)) were wrong (incidentally, though, we should remember that the point of the story in Acts 10 and 11 is
a lot bigger than shrimp). With that in mind, how do we interpret "not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place"? The most obvious reading would be "all 613 rules of the Torah will be in effect until the end of time," but clearly that's not the case, so one of the assumptions in there has to be wrong.
I lean toward the belief that the specific code of law laid out in the Old Testament was "fulfilled" with Jesus' death, and it is no longer binding on us. This does not mean that everything it outlawed is now okay.
Leviticus 19—between the anti-homosexual passages of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—prohibits stealing and lying, oppressing neighbors and robbing them, withholding wages from a laborer, cursing the deaf and tripping the blind, showing partiality in judicial matters, slandering, and taking vengeance. Leviticus 20 repeats prohibitions against child sacrifice, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Are we to conclude, using shellfish logic, that these laws no longer apply today because they are found in the Holiness Code?
The logic here is not "The Old Testament law is fulfilled and no longer binding on us; therefore, homosexuality must be good now, because it was wrong back then and now everything is the opposite!" The logic is "The prohibition against homosexuality in the Old Testament is no longer binding. Are there other reasons it should be immoral? If not, then it's okay." There are plenty of reasons that stealing, lying, and sacrificing children are wrong. Just because the law portion of the first five books of the Old Testament is no longer telling me not to murder people doesn't mean that I can ignore the rest of the Bible and my conscience telling me murder is wrong anyway.
(Sidenote (though I've mentioned it before), Leviticus 19 also forbids landowners from harvesting their fields to the edges, for the benefit of the poor, and demands that aliens and sojourners in the land not be discriminated against and be treated the same as citizens. Why, among those who support using the government to outlaw homosexuality, is there so little support for using the government to make the rich help the poor, and such strict immigration policies?)
However, even if specific parts of the law (rather than the principles behind them) are still binding on us, Leviticus 18 says that it is about "uncleanness". Again, this does not mean everything in there is okay now. Something can be both unclean
and immoral, like sacrificing children to Molech. But if something is
just unclean (by Levitical standards) without being immoral (which could be reiterated in other parts of scripture, or could be apparent through observation), then does it still apply in the new covenant?
Admittedly, I don't have every single answer ever. Like everyone else in the world, there's always room for me to read more. Unfortunately, I'm not so great about reading on this sort of thing during the school year. But thank you for the discussion, I did appreciate the opportunity to talk about this a bit.
Same here. I always enjoy monopolizing a few pages with you.
I found this interesting video on YouTube, thought it was relevant.
I've always found these cases really interesting.
Incidentally, could that be considered a legitimate reason for divorce under strict biblical standards?
Poll
