What authority does the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible hold over Christians? That question has been asked and answered before, right. I mean Jesus dealt with that. He fulfilled the Old Law. He said so himself in Matthew 5:17. That's why we don't sacrifice animals anymore; or rely on priests to be a go-between. Jesus made serves us in both those capacities. He was the perfect sacrifice for our sins. No more sacrifices are required. And no more trips to the Temple.
There's a reason I ask and answer this question. I'm wondering if Christians should use the Old Testament to prove or to serve as evidence for doctrinal positions. I've done this many times. But I am really beginning to rethink my thinking on this one. If the Old Law is not binding any longer - then the Old Testament shouldn't be binding any longer either. But we really have a double standard on that. Well, I've had a double standard on that.
Here's an example. When it comes to worship I have traditionally been, well, traditional. I don't really like that word so I'll say that I tend to err on the side of caution. So many times when I have felt uncomfortable about an issue and wasn't really able to address it in the New Testament text, I would turn over to Leviticus 10 and throw Nadab and Abihu at it. "See, when it comes to worship we should only do exactly what God says to do." I am going to guess that I'm not the only person to do that.
So, is that right? Is that okay? Does that fall in line with the way God wants us to use the Old Testament text? Is that why God was sure to include that story? What do you think? I'll try to answer some of those questions in the next post.
hi, jeremy. the new blog design looks great. i get your blog in a reader, so i don't actually click over unless i'm going to comment. anyway, i've not seen the changes until now. it looks really good.
ReplyDeleteyou said, "If the Old Law is not binding any longer - then the Old Testament shouldn't be binding any longer either."
i don't think i agree with the statement that the old law is not binding. i guess it depends on what is meant by the word "binding," which i'll admit i may not understand.
i just know that Jesus says in matthew 5 he didn't come to abolish the law, but that he's fulfilling them. so i'd say it's not an issue of the old law not being useful, true, right, or binding -- but it's an issue of us learning how to read it through the lens of Jesus and the kingdom he ushered in.
i, too, used to use the nadab and abihu text against instruments in worship. but i'm not sure the answer is to say we can't use that text anymore -- or that it's not binding. i think the answer is to understand that text the way God would have us understand it.
anyway, those are my thoughts from the top of my head. which could very well be wrong.
Hmm . . . you're making me think. :-)
ReplyDeleteYou're right about binding being difficult to understand. Or at least needing to be specific about it. Here's what I'm thinking of in terms of binding - it has to do with accountability. What is God going to hold me accountable for? In that context a question might be, is God going to hold me accountable for keeping the "the Law?" No, I don't think so. But there's another side for me. Is God going to hold be accountable for keeping the principles of the "Law?" Yes I think so. I think that's a little of what Jesus was getting at in Luke 14 with the Sabbath healing.
I didn't mean to say that the OT isn't useful for the Christian or that the Christian can disregard it. I do think you're right that we need to do our best to understand how Jesus viewed the OT. And, what ALL He meant when he said that He was there to fulfill it.
i think God will hold us accountable to the old law -- at least as much as he holds us accountable to (almost) everything else. Jesus seems to say so in matthew 5:17-20. v. 19 in particular reads, "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."
ReplyDeleteso i think the situation is that we misunderstand and incorrectly read the law -- not that we're no longer accountable to it. we have to interpret it through the lens of Jesus and his kingdom. i think in particular Jesus calls us to read the law AFTER understanding that God desires mercy and not sacrifice (mt 9:13 and 12:7).
when we read the law with the understanding that mercy is how we interpret, we'll begin to understand how God holds us accountable, and how we should hold others (and ourselves) accountable. the greatest commands deal with love for God and fellow man. in my opinion, THIS is what God will hold us accountable to -- and the way in which he will judge our obedience to the old law, which has not been abolished, but fulfilled.
I'm trying to think through applying what you're saying. I agree that we should try to see the Old Testament (just like everything else) the way Jesus saw it. Which we learn from studying how he quoted and applied it. I agree that was with love and compassion/mercy. But that still leaves many, many laws that are just not applicable today. For example, the directions about the lamp and bread of the temple (Lev 24). Jesus took away the need for a temple and the need for these laws concerning the temple. How do we treat them? This is where my questions begin.
ReplyDeleteIf there is really no application for these laws in our lives (and unless we use some extreme symbolism there isn't) then the idea of fulfillment seems to indicate that they are no longer necessary. If that is accurate, does that mean that all of the laws are no longer necessary and binding?
Is this about the role of the OT in regard to the Christian today, or is this more about using Nadab & Abihu to argue for acapella singing?
ReplyDeleteThe Old Law doesn't always apply to us in the specifics, but the principles behind the Old Law remain (for God does not change).
Jesus was born under the Law (Gal. 4:4), & remained under the Law until He died on the cross (Rom. 7:4-6 teaches that Jews remained under the Law until they died to it, which would have been when they were baptized into Jesus' death). So in the Gospels, Jesus was under the Law, as were His disciples, thus He affirms the Law in Matt. 5:19. But that does NOT mean Christians today are under the Law of Moses. Jesus was circumcised & kept the Sabbath, & He was under obligation to keep those. If He broke them, He would have sinned, since He was under the Law. But circumcision & the Sabbath is not binding on Christians today (Col. 2:16, Gal. 6:15, etc.).
(To be continued in another post due to length)
Theophilus
Using Nadab & Abihu to argue for acapella music is just plain silly. What did they do? They offered "strange fire." What exactly does that mean? Well, nobody really knows! What is clear is that, whatever they did, they did it with an irreverent attitude towards God (Lev. 10:3), which is the real sin here. Look, whatever you think about instruments in worship, they were commanded in the OT, so obviously it isn't some inherent, moral abomination before God!
ReplyDeleteIt gets to the point of being ridiculous. If you do a search about clapping in the church of Christ, you will find sites that have long lists of when it is & isn't OK to clap in a worship service. Can people shout "Amen!" during a sermon? If they can, can women do it, or only men? Seriously, this is just insane, to think that all these tiny particulars of worship protocol are all matters of salvation.
Formal worship under the Old Law was very specific, hundreds of commandments. But under the New Law, there is very little written in regards to the particulars of formal worship. The Pharisees took these hundreds of laws & added many more. But what we sometimes do in the churches of Christ is far worse, for we invent long lists of laws in order to fill in the gap Jesus left when He gave us so much freedom under the New Law!
Some say all "man-made" innovations to worship are wrong. That is not so. Where in the Bible does it authorize us to sing in 4 part harmonies? That isn't how the early church sang! There is nothing wrong with 4 part harmonies, because it reinforces Christian teachings - a diverse group coming together to bring praise to the Lord.
What about the church model itself? The church is based upon the synagogue. Where in the Bible did God command the synagogue? God never commanded the synagogue! The synagogue was a "man-made" innovation to divine worship. And yet we find Jesus & Paul approving of the synagogue model - which would lead to the present day church model.
There is nothing wrong with man-made traditions, so long as they do not contradict or get in the way of divine commandments! Look at instrumental music. Does it keep one from keeping the divine command regarding singing in worship? Not at all. Eph. 5:19 says to sing to one another, making melody in your heart to the Lord. Does accompanying your singing with a piano prevent you from making melody with your heart? Absolutely not! In fact, instrumental music, when done well, can help you focus on the song you are singing. Sure, instrumental music can be handled in such a way that it detracts from the song being sung, but not necessarily. Anything CAN become problematic, but there is nothing inherently wrong with instrumental accompaniment in worship music.
Besides, Eph. 5:19 & Col. 3:16, when read in context, are not giving specific directions on what is or isn't acceptable in formal worship. It is talking about how we ought to be singing encouraging songs to each other throughout our lives. Like when I sing hymns to my children at home, or when we go on walks, etc. If these verses only refer to formal worship, does that mean we are forbidden from being drunk (Eph. 5:18) only while in formal worship, or all the time?
Theophilus
Theophilus,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking time to share your thoughts. I take it by the exclamation points that you are emotionally charged on this issue. I am too. I'm not sure if you understood, but I was pointing in the same direction as you. My point was that I have previous used proof-texting from the OT to prove doctrinal positions. I'm sure that I'm not alone on that issue. I live/work in a generally far-right area - some might even say legalistic. My comments are intended to get people to think about things that they have held to that they may need to rethink. Like you said, traditions are good, as long as they do not get in the way of divine commandments. Unfortunately, I think there are some traditions that have interfered with divine commandments. And unfortunately, we have used proof-texting to (in some cases) erroneously make our arguments.