Jesus and the Law

The Old Testament has some challenging passages, there's no denying it.  My own minister has admitted he won't even preach on passages such as the warfare of Joshua, because they're too difficult to understand (and he is a traditionalist minister who believes in the "plain reading of scripture").

One challenge is knowing which Bible passages from the OT should we, as Christians, still follow?  How does a traditionalist wrestle with the Leviticus passages outlawing homosexual practice while equally outlawing tattoos, eating certain foods and wearing clothing of mixed fibres.

An article published by the Christian Institute explains one perspective: "It teaches that the moral element in the law, focused in the ten commandments, is of permanent application, while the ceremonial and civil elements were for the duration of the Old Testament economy only. The ceremonial was a shadow of Christ which became obsolete with his coming, and the civil a model of legal arrangements for any society, though not of such a status as to demand exact replication."

So, in a nutshell - passages relating to tattoos and foods etc. could be ceremonial, in that they distinguished God's people from the surrounding pagan worship practices.  Sexual relation restrictions, they would argue, are permanent moral law.

My problem with this, is that when we read about homosexual practices, they are almost entirely in the context of pagan temple worship and such activities, which could arguably put them into the category of ceremonial laws designed to distinguish God's people from the pagans around.

However, I have a greater problem with the division of laws into 3 categories.  It comes from these words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

It concerns me when I read these words but hear Christians happily ignore certain OT requirements, such as these: “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God." (Lev 19:9-10).  And yet, many who ignore these will jump on other passages such as the famous Leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable".

The division of Law into 3 types is, I believe, a valiant attempt to wrestle with Scripture.  However, when asked what the Greatest Commandment is, Jesus gave an answer that helps us better wrestle with the Old Testament.

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt 22:37-40).

I have always considered this passage to be a foundation of my faith.  I believe I am saved by faith in Jesus.  In my striving to live a holy life that is pleasing to God, I do not believe I have to follow every law of the Old Testament, but rather the principles outlined here by Jesus.  In so doing, I believe Christians keep right by the Law.  Of course, we slip, fall down and stumble, but not because of a failure to obey every letter of the Law, but rather our failure to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbours as ourselves.

Paul explains this concept in Romans 2:14-15

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."

I don't believe Paul is saying that Gentiles accidentally follow all Old Testament laws by following their moral compass, but rather that when they follow the principles of Jesus of loving God with everything and loving our neighbour as our-self then in so  doing, we demonstrate that obedience to the law is in our hearts.

Part of my belief on this issue is shaped by my understanding of the story of the Old Testament.  I see it predominantly as a detailed account (in different form - history, poetry etc.) of the relationship between God and his people.  The laws of the OT were to help the people of the time keep their part of the covenant with God.  We now have a new covenant in Christ, and in keeping the Greatest Commandments through our faith in Christ, we keep the law of the old covenant.

So what do I do with the difficult passages on the OT?  I prayerfully try to discern how these laws were about investing in the covenant with God and look to the new covenant I have in Christ and seek to obey the Greatest Commandments in each and every situation.  I fail regularly, but the grace of God is sufficient for me and I have the Holy Spirit as guide and counsellor in my heart,  bearing witness, sometimes accusing and sometimes defending me.

So, did Jesus do away with the Law?  By no means.  He fulfilled the Law - but not just the ceremonial aspects.  He fulfilled it in its entirety, and in following the Greatest Commandments, we can meet all the requirements of the Law, in Christ.

The power of an analogy

The debate that is raging at the moment about gay marriage across the world has thrown up an interesting issue.  In our attempt to understand complex issues, we often draw on analogies to help us get our heads round things.  Jesus himself often used parables.

In this debate, I have heard two different analogies, which lead to powerfully different outcomes.

The first, used by many conservative evangelicals and traditionalists, is that homosexuality is a departure from the "norm" in the same way that something like alcoholism is.  The argument follows that a loving approach to an alcoholic is to "love the sinner, hate the sin."  Ignoring for a moment the vocal minority of placard waving haters (you know the type... God hates faggots types, that have no knowledge of the message of Christ), we have many who would try sincerely to welcome and show love to a homosexual, while imploring them to turn away from a homosexual lifestyle in the same way we try to help an alcoholic find freedom from addiction.

Another analogy that is used by more progressive types (in the theological sense) is that sexuality is like handedness.  The majority of us are right handed.  A minority is left handed, a few are ambidextrous.

Go back in history and you will see that being left handed was sometimes a curse.  Teachers would strike a child using the wrong hand.  Even the Latin word shares the root of the word sinister.  There was something unnatural and wrong about left handed people, who were clearly not following the template of normality.

And here's where it becomes interesting.  When a sincerely loving alcoholic-analogy Christian meets a like minded handedness Christian, it's as if they are on different planets.

One hears the other saying "I don't care about alcohol abuse.  It's a live and let live society.  What harm is it really doing?  Aren't there more important things to worry about than if someone is drunk and addicted to a drunken lifestyle?"

The other hears a different message.  "I love you, but to belong to our family and have an active role in it, you have to renounce your left-handedness.  If you can't use your right hand (you know, the proper one that we're designed to use), then don't use any hand at all... That's a perfectly acceptable alternative.  We'll stand alongside you in your struggle."

Interestingly, these two Christians might stand shoulder to shoulder on so many debates and issues, yet the power of this one issue is so divisive as to make them feel poles apart.  One hears total disregard for sin and holiness, the other hears a complete lack of compassion and love.

Any read of previous posts will lead you to not be surprised to hear I prefer the handedness analogy.  No doubt if you prefer the alcohol analogy you will want to scream "but the plain reading of scripture says it's a sin!"  I understand and respect your view but on other posts we address the issue of what the Bible says, appears to say and how there are different interpretations that mean we need to take great care before condemning left handed people who use their preferred hand because they were born that way...