How much of the Old testament applies to Christians?

Since St Paul all but stated that as follows of christ they were no longer bond by traditional ritual but stressed the importance of "Divine Law" I wonder what (if anything) of the old treatment is officially as regarded as cannon.

Although the opposite is seen in Mathew:

"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. I tell you the truth, 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. Anyone who 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 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."

I'm coming at this as a Jew not a Christian, but I believe (if I'm remembering my religious studies class) that Mathew was trying to convert Jews, so he had that opinion. The Apostles who were converting pagans unsurprisingly were in the direction of none of the Old Testament applying.

The meaning of that isn't entirely clear, unfortunately. "Until everything is accomplished" could refer to Jesus's resurrection or the second coming. Furthermore, Jesus does pick out a few things and explicitly declares them no longer necessary (pork, circumcision, etc.)

It depends. Since I'm a Gentile, lots of it are pretty much for inspiration and a sense of context, than to be actively followed. Paul adresses this when Jewish converts were wanting Greek converts to get circumcised, abstain from pork and observe tmeple rules and stuff.

I'd imagine that the Christian experience would be quite different for a Messianic Jew than us Gentiles.

....And basically, what you said, Jordan.

edited 11th May '11 3:01:24 PM by pvtnum11

It's up for interpretation. There are, needless to say, a lot of different opinions out there.

That debate is even covered in Paul's epistles and recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Jesus is never recorded as giving a perfectly clear answer to this, although his remarks concerning the "new covenant" and his outright opposition to many of the legalistic requirements of Judaism at the time suggests that little, if any, of the Old Testament rules would apply.

My reading of the Old Testament is that it's a record of beliefs and histories that form a background that explain why and how Jesus's teachings came about. It provides an historical context that is necessary to understand what the New Testament authors were talking about. It didn't arise spontaneously; rather it came about as a result of political and cultural evolution.

Seen from that viewpoint, one can argue (as I have) that the Old Testament doesn't and shouldn't apply to Christians at all. Aside from the myriad contradictions and cultural dissonance between the two, the message in the Gospels is about how we need to live well with one another, instead of following a bunch of hidebound old rules that either got in the way or were rendered meaningless when the Romans burned Jerusalem to the ground.

In essence, the Old Testament spoke to a particular group of people at a particular place and time. The message of the New Testament is for all people everywhere.

edited 11th May '11 3:14:38 PM by Lawyerdude

That does make me think of something. Jews now (and I'd guess then too) don't really feel the Law applies to anyone else anyway, and so it does seem kind of counter-intuitive that Jesus would intend the Old Testament to apply to all Christians unless the idea is that he was preaching an evangelical take on Judaism. Or else, it would make sense if Mathew's passage was as I suggested a reassurance for "Jewish Christians".

I'm remembering a Christian sect that believes Satan wrote the Old Testament, and only the New Testament is valid. Can't remember what they're called, though. (I only read about them as part of a larger piece on interfaith relationships—they do not get along with Jews.)

I believe the Gnostics did and so group derived from them (forget the name), which is why I think it's kind of funny that they are popularly thought of as the "liberal and fun loving bunch".

That's pretty much what I go by. Some of it is probably still relevant (I think we can all agree on no murdering and stuff), and a lot of it probably isn't.

Even the New Testament isn't exactly... new.

Depends on who you ask. It runs the gamut from "All of the Bible applies since it is the Divine Word of God." to "The entire Bible is a metaphor and is only a rough guideline on how to live."

All of it is canon, but the Law only applies to the Jews to whom it was given. That said, many of the principles in the Old testament are reaffirmed in the New, and thus still apply. But many of them have also been explicitly ended in the New Covenant, such as the clean/unclean laws, the divorce laws, and the "do not associate with Outsiders" concept, and still others have been implicitly ended, such as the Sabbath and Tithing.

The Gnostics didn't really have a coherent view on anything (as "Gnostic" is a later exonym for a few dozen sects), but I don't recall any sects that even acknowledged Catholic canon to that extent.

As a sidenote, the reason for that reputation is heresiologists alternating between accusing them of being horribly libertine and horribly repressive.

edited 11th May '11 7:26:27 PM by Tzetze

Ah, I remembered/looked up the sect I was thinking of. It's called Macronism.

I thought that that might be it, but they didn't believe that the Old Testament was Satanic, they believed that the god depicted in it was evil.

I know that isaac newton's rejection of the church was because he believed that the whole concept of the holy trinity being in direct contradiction to the first commandment. the man had some rather unique views on religion[1].

edited 12th May '11 4:35:36 AM by joeyjojo

All of it.

But we are bound by the intent behind the OT laws — not by the specific rules, which were shaped by the societal concerns of the times they were written. By the way, the same holds for the NT too: otherwise, eating blood or strangled animals would be sinful, as per Acts 15:28-29.

This whole "do not follow the letter of the law at the expense of its intended purpose" was one of the central points of Jesus' message, after all.

And I like blood pudding .

edited 12th May '11 4:47:59 AM by Carciofus

Have to agree with the dude above. Coming at it from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective, the Old Testament is like the gradual unrolling of the main event- God Incarnate as Jesus Christ, so all the old laws are leading up to this moment. Once the moment is fufilled, the old laws have no sway over Christians. It's an interesting question, though. One of the early problems in the Church was the "Judaizers" who believed that circumcision was neccesary to be a Christian. St.Pauls attacks on "Works of the law" is basically aimed at those who thought the Mosaic Law was still in effect.

The only parts most christians use of the Old Testament is either the Creation Myth or the excuses to exterminate all LGBT people, so I suppose you can just pick any parts you want and be satisfied.

That said, I think the New Testament is more apropriate not because Yahweh stops being evil, but because Leviticus explicitly states that any random person who claims to be the son of God must die. Therefore, it would render the whole religion hypocrital, and we don't want that, do we?

I’d say the Ten Commandments comes up with far more frequency than these two issues. We just HEAR about this much more often.

My understanding is that Christ is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law; even in the Old Testament itself (particularly in places like Isaiah) there's an understanding that rules like the dietary laws, specific types of clothing, animal sacrifices, etc. are symbolic of a right attitude and fellowship with God, not righteous acts in and of themselves.

The idea is that via Jesus' death and resurrection and the subsequent advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost, believers now have reconciliation with God and are no longer required to participate in the Masaic Law's outward, often forward-looking representations of fellowship with God.

As previously mentioned, though, there is a distinction made between "moral" laws and "ritual" laws. The moral laws (like the Ten Commandments) are expected to be kept, and in some cases are even strengthened (like when Jesus says that to even hate another person, emotionally speaking, is to commit the sin of murder in your heart). The ritual laws, like circumcision, the dietary laws, and animal sacrifices, are considered to have been symbolic in nature, and are no longer considered requirements.

• edit to change some confusing phraseology.

edited 23rd May '11 11:05:29 AM by menwithoutchests

Given that [S/P]aul was tasked with destroying the early followers of Jesus prior to his claimed "Road to Damascus" moment, one must really treat every word he wrote with suspicion.

The guy had a vested interest in subverting, changing and warping the message of Jesus in order to dispose of the early Christians.

[S/P]aul's teachings have survived into the mainstream, theirs have not. Does that not sound like a successful sabotage mission to you?

I haven't heard that, honestly it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory.

So Paul's secret attempts to destroy Christianity turned it from a little-known Jewish sect into one of the most popular religions of the world?

Uh. There should a special word for this sort of failure.

No, seriously. It is well documented (in the Acts, for example) that Paul was one of the people who pushed the most for spreading the message of Christianity among non-Jewish populations, and for a "liberal" (as we would say now, though it does not make much sense) interpretation of ritual laws and of their significance. In doing so, he certainly met some initial resistance: from reading the Gospels as they are now, it seems to me that his point of view was more faithful than that of his opponents' to the original message, but eh — thinking about things from a purely historical point of view, it is certainly possible that that's just because Paul's position won.

In any case, I see no reason for doubting Paul's sincerity on this matter (nor that of his opponents, of course).

edited 25th May '11 7:21:56 AM by Carciofus