From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:44:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>I pointed out that not all christians agree with this, and that
>many christians today still quote Leviticus as a reason to condemn
>homosexual acts (while usually ignoring the penalty prescribed by it).

You're obviously right that many Christians still quote pieces of
Leviticus.  But if you ask them why they only quote pieces of it, I
think you'll hear an answer that's closer to what the Christians here
have been trying to tell you.  There's going to be some Christian
somewhat who will prove me wrong, but almost no Christians accept
Leviticus as a whole as binding on Christians.  I'll include a
discussion below explaining why that is.  For the moment please just
believe me.  Where there's real disagreement is on whether parts of
the Law are still binding, and if so how you identify them.  The more
radical Christians claim that none of the Law is binding on
Christians.  Others believe there is a "moral Law" that is still
binding.  The results of these two approaches may not be all that
different, since those who believe in a "moral Law" typically try to
identify it by looking for what portions of the Law are endorsed by
Jesus or the NT authors.  Thus in either case the NT becomes the key.
For conservative Christians, the law against homosexuality is
considered to be part of the "moral Law" because it is endorsed by
Paul.  The penalty is not.  It's considered to be part of the penal
code of the Israelite nation, not binding on Christians.

As I said, Christians do not entirely agree on these issues.  There
are probably cases where some Christians consider something to be part
of the moral Law because it's somehow obviously moral, without an
explicit NT endorsement.  There are also Christians who do not
consider even Paul's opposition to homosexuality to be enough to make
a prohibition that's binding on all Christians.

But despite these differences in where to draw the line, I think just
about all Christians agree that there is a line:

 - that large portions of Leviticus are not binding on Christians
 - that there are some principles that are binding on Christians,
	even if they are not described as being part of the Law
 - that the NT is basic to finding out where the line lies
 - that the Ten Commandments summarize much of what is binding on
	Christians, particularly when they are interpreted in the
	way that Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount

>I'd say this is a false dichotomy; Paul could be the founder of christianity
>AND be wrong about no longer being under the law.  I don't see where, *within
>christianity*, Paul has the authority to say these laws no longer apply.
>He claims this, but the laws were supposedly handed down by god, and
>Paul is just an imperfect human being according to christianity, so I
>don't see how his opinion is supposed to be convincing in this matter.
>How is it more than the opinion of one man?

OK, now let's deal with the question of why at least parts of the Law
do not apply to Christians.  This is not just Paul, though certainly
Paul was the great opponent of the Law.  Many portions of 1st Cent.
Judaism (and I think essentially all of 20th Cent. Judaism) did not
think God intended everyone to become Jewish.  The covenant with Moses
was thought to be an agreement specifically with the Jewish people.
Jews had to obey the Laws that were part of that covenant.  Non-Jews
did not.  Non-Jews were bound by a more general covenant, with Noah.
It included approximately 7 laws, which were developed by exegesis of
Gen 9:1 ff.  A Gentile that believed in God and kept those laws was
considered to a "righteous Gentile", whose portion in the next world
would be equivalent to that of a Jew.  (One famous quote says that a
righteous Gentile is equivalent to the High Priest).

Now there are certainly differences in approach to the Law among
various NT authors.  Paul's approach certainly seems to be more
negative than Jesus' (at least in Matthew).  I think a lot of this is
that Jesus was speaking to Jews and Paul was writing to Gentiles.  But
dealing with that fully would make this posting too long.  Since
Christians today are overwhelmingly Gentiles, all we really need to
deal with is the obligations of Gentiles to obey the Law.  On that
subject, the NT is consistent:

  - Jesus, in dealing with a Centurion, clearly accepted him as
	a "righeous Gentile".  He was held up as a model for faith.
	No suggestion is made that he should become a Jew or accept
	the Law.  (Jesus' comment about him makes it clear that
	Jesus knew he was not a Jew.)  His dealing with the
	Samaritan woman says that while salvation is from the Jews,
	the time was at hand when it would be available to everyone.
	Again, no suggestion was made that one would have to become
	a Jew.

  - In Acts 15, there is an account of a meeting of Christian leaders
	to deal specifically with the question of whether Gentiles
	could become Christians without becoming Jews first.  This
	meeting decided that they could.  They did not have to
	accept the entire Law of Moses.  A set of rules are given
	that they must accept.  These rules have some similarity to the 
	7 rules of the Noachic convenant, and may well be a form of them.

  - Paul's letters deal repeatedly with this issue.  He is adamant
	that Gentiles should not take on the obligations of the	Law.  

The upshot of all of this is the Leviticus as a whole is not binding
on Christians, because Leviticus is part of the Law of Moses.  This
does not mean that Christians have no moral principles.  Furthermore,
since the OT and NT God is the same, we should expect at least some
similarity.  Some Christians try to deal with this by separating the
Law into a portion that is moral, and is binding on everyone, and a
portion that is specific to the covenant with the Jews.  The latter is
often called the "ceremonial law".  Others say that morals must be
based entirely on the NT.  While there may be some differences in
conclusions, both approaches accept the Ten Commandments as a minimal
set of standards that are still binding on Christians.