What are the criteria by which we interpret? What are the criteria by which we say “not this part of the Old Testament” but “that part”?
For that matter, what are the criteria by which we say “not this part of the New Testament” but “that part”? I ask this second question especially in light of Paul’s comments talking about the futility and temporary nature of the first covenant (for which “the Law” comprises the defining terms).
I prefaced it with something you should have recognized:
How appropriate is it to impose the doctrine of the Trinity on the text? Oh yeah, very. Likewise it is very appropriate to make a distinction between the laws of love and the whole of Mosaic law.
It’s not at all appropriate to impose the doctrine of the Trinity on the text. Does it “come out of the text”? I believe it does. Not necessarily in the somewhat strained, conceptually Greek, articulation of, say, the Athanasian Creed, but certainly in general it’s there; not least in Matthew 28:19, but certainly elsewhere.
I wonder what Jesus, Moses, Paul, or James would say if, in that cultural context you were to explain the difference between “moral law” and…sacrificial law? Ritual law?
It’s not the “difference between love and escargot.” It’s: why is there a difference? It’s: where is the line between what is permitted and what is not?
Diet rules don’t apply? Okay, we can justify that from Mark. What about dress rules? Mixed fabrics? Sacrifices? Intermarrying?
And what about the Jerusalem Council that prescribed just a few very simple practices for gentiles and not the “rest of the law” (which “neither we nor our forefathers were capable of bearing,” Acts 15:10)?
These are not “obvious like the difference between love and escargot.”
And what about Paul who says the law is temporary? Not “part of the law.” Not “the sacrificial and purity rules.”
So again, are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? Are you just playing a game?
We’re just spinning our wheels. You don’t understand the necessity of enforceable family rules for good behavior and smooth family operation, and I am not adequately articulate to help you see that you don’t.
I think I’m getting off this merry-go-round, to mix a metaphor and to change the axis from horizontal to vertical (always a good idea: Hebrews 12:2).
Now you’re venturing into straw man behaviour. That we have “necessary enforceable family rules” is irrelevant to salvation and Christ-like character formation.
That’s probably why the “necessary rules” are different from family to family, country to country, congregation to congregation, denomination to denomination, etc.
I want to look at the testing (tempting) of Jesus in the wilderness. I think it illustrates something about the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament.
The devil tempts Jesus, who is fasting, to turn stones into bread, Jesus replies by quoting Deuteronomy: “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’"
The devil next tempts Jesus with authority and splendor, in return for worshipping him. Jesus replies by quoting Deuteronomy again: “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"
The devil next tempts Jesus to put God to the test by jumping from a high place. (And the devil actually quotes Psalm 91 to hint that God will protect him!)
Jesus counters by again quoting Deuteronomy: “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
Do you think that the early church saw in this a valuable and relevant lesson for their behavior? Does your own church find value in these verses?
What I’m seeing is that the Old Testament is ingrained in the New Testament, and that these are not irrelevant throwaway verses.
Thanks for reading! This narrative appears in all three synoptic gospels. Because no other humans were there, Jesus must have shared the encounter with his disciples.
I was reading 1 Corinthians chapter 9 this morning, and in there Paul makes a lot of interesting reference to the law, and makes commentary on his own relationship to it, which should also be of interest to this thread. He spoke of oxen treading out the grain and then asks if it was really oxen that God was concerned for, and did not that apply all the more to God’s servants?
After vs. 19 or so…
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law.
One apparent take away from that? To Paul, all our conniptions here about “law or no law” are neither here nor there … It’s all about Christ. The [old] law doesn’t seem particularly essential to Paul, but he would certainly use it as necessary when it is the way to reach those who are under it. And he certainly did not think of himself as “lawless” either, as the concluding verses of the above quote indicate.
The dietary laws are the easy ones to identify as “not moral, not about love.”
The law allowing beating of slaves, as long as they don’t die, is one that you, Dale, could not or would not categorize.
The same with the laws on divorce.
I shan’t ask again if those laws are part of the moral laws that haven’t passed away, because you have already demonstrated that you either don’t know or won’t say.
Those laws are clearly moral laws, yet I see them as violating the new law Jesus gave at the Last Supper.