Introduction
The Old Testament law is seen as irrelevant by most modern Christians today. Christians are now under the blood of Jesus Christ, which is said to abrogate the Law. Galatians 6:2 says, “Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ” (NASB). The law of Christ is to love God and your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40). This does not mean, however, that the Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians today. Author J. Daniel Hays expounds on this topic in his article, “Applying the Old Testament Law Today,” and focuses on the method of Principlism. This approach allows the Old Testament Law to be viewed in light of the New Testament.
Reflection of Principlism
The traditional approach to the Mosaic Law is categorized by moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. Hays postulates this approach is not correct as it has three major weaknesses: it has no textual support, it ignores the narrative context, and it fails to reflect the changes from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. Hays asserts the correct method is Principlism, a five method approach to applying the Law.
The five methods of Principlism are identifying what specific laws meant to the target audience, determining the differences between the original audience and Christians today, developing universal principles from the Bible, correlating a law from the Old Testament and applying it to the New Testament, and applying a universal principle to life today. Each approach has strengths, but at the same time has weaknesses. The first method identifies a specific law and applies it to the context of the Scripture. Hays says, “Connecting texts to their contexts is a basic tenet of proper interpretive method. The Law is part of a story, and ...
... middle of paper ...
...t. This law is repeated as Christians are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and God views the blood the same way He did in the Old Testament. The life of the flesh is in the blood, this time it is the life of Jesus Christ, and sins are forgiven by His shed blood. This is the reason Christians are restricted from eating blood.
Conclusion
Principlism is a five step approach to interpret the Old Testament Law in light of the New Testament. This approach allows believers to apply these principles to their lives today. This does not destroy the teachings of the Old Testament, but allows for reflection on the text without diminishing the New Testament. Principlism also has weaknesses as Hays says that Principlism “may tend to oversimplify some of the complex issues,” however Principlism is more simplified and easier to understand than the traditional method.
It is the reader and his or her interpretive community who attempts to impose a unified reading on a given text. Such readers may, and probably will, claim that the unity they find is in the text, but this claim is only a mask for the creative process actually going on. Even the most carefully designed text can not be unified; only the reader's attempted taming of it. Therefore, an attempt to use seams and shifts in the biblical text to discover its textual precursors is based on a fundamentally faulty assumption that one might recover a stage of the text that lacked such fractures (Carr 23-4).
From my reading of Galatians, I would say that we should not follow the Jewish Law. If the Jewish law were the only way a person can be saved, then there would be no need for Jesus’s death. The apostle Paul also noticed this error because he tells the readers that because of his new understanding of the Law, he has come to reject the Law (Galatians 2:19). The Law is not the “end-all-be-all”, it is simply a filler until Jesus. Before the time of Jesus, people needed a moral code to live by, but they have a new Law to follow: the teachings of Jesus Christ!
"If it was good enough for the Lord in the Old Testament, it ought to be good enough for the state of West Virginia with the burdens we put on folks."
The Old Testament law is seen as irrelevant by most modern Christians today. Christians are now under the blood of Jesus Christ which is said to abrogate the Law. Galatians 6:2 says, “Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.” The law of Christ is to love God and your neighbor as yourself. This does not mean, however, that the Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians today. Author J. Daniel Hays expounds on this topic in his article, “Applying the Old Testament Law Today,” and focuses on the hermeneutical approach of Principlism. This approach allows the Old Testament Law to be viewed in light of the New Testament.
Much like the laws in the Old Testament, the law is God solving a problem before it occurs (Maxwell, 2010). As Reggie Joiner reminds us: “Relationship comes before rules” (Maxwell, 2010, 176). If a relationship forms, rules are easier to embrace. Rules are a tool to keep the ship and everyone on it going in the same direction. Shared systems of values strengthen partnerships minimizing the possibility of comprise. Values determine our actions. Our conscience can be a fickle thing if not tended to. A good study of 1 Timothy 1:5 will sharpen the cause for keeping the conscience in order and know that a good conscience is the product of a pure heart. Finally, we trust fully in God’s promises to comfort us, but need to share that same comfort through an empowerment to do so from God himself. Kept promises are the glue that holds all the guidelines together and shuttles them into the heart and soul of mankind by building
While the Hebrews were expected to abide by the laws laid out in the Old Testament by Moses, the coming and crucifixion of Jesus negated many of these laws, as the Law of Grace took precedence over everything prior. In his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, Milton uses scripture from both the Old and New Testaments and argues that the Law of Moses was more lenient than that of Grace, and therefore makes more sense.
And again, “Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus. . . since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.” Gal. 2:16.
wouldn't be in the Bible. If God wanted us to live by his rules, why
For anyone who does not understand the distinction between law and gospel, Scripture will remain incomprehensible. In order to fully understand the bible one must first educate themselves with the distinguishing characteristics of both law and gospel otherwise they will regard the bible as being filled with discrepancies. According to Luther, law and gospel are two different ways the Word of God comes to us. Luther believed the Church has lost the message that God is forgiving and compassionate, instead the church adopted the view that God is a lawgiver. Luther acknowledged that law and gospel are in both the Testament but he linked Law more with the Old Testament and gospel with the New Testament.
Throughout the Bible the theme of covenant is intertwined within all the books and stories that are read, from Genesis to Revelation. Covenants were at work behind the scenes throughout the history of the Bible and are still at work today. “The traditional Christian theology
Consequently we ask the question where does the idea of the Bible effecting Christian ethical decision making stop having unlimited interpretation. Interpretation can keep on being made of the biblical texts in so many different ways. A Christian living in today’s modern society who is practicing with the Bible as the role of how they base their ethical decisions has many things to consider. Mainly direct and indirect interpretation is to be had of the old and new testaments. Bringing the Bible stories and parables into context helps modern Christians to understand and live out ethically correct lives by applying it to the situation they are in.
Thus, an effort is made to highlight how Bible interpretation – through its publication – has developed in the history of Christianity.
Both the legal and salvation philosophies of the Old and New Testaments reflect those of the cultures around them, due to much copying and borrowing of laws and ideas. Furthermore, all societies around the world have similar moral and legal codes -- which is certainly not an accident.
Answering these questions is the purpose of this essay. I begin by arguing that the Bible cannot be adequately understood independent of its historical context. I concede later that historical context alone however is insufficient, for the Bible is a living-breathing document as relevant to us today as it was the day it was scribed. I conclude we need both testimonies of God at work to fully appreciate how the Bible speaks to us.