Warning, snark ahead!
I have long argued — even from my Christian days — that Christians are obligated to keep Old Testament law. Christian apologists and theologians use all sorts of hocus pocus and hermenuetical wrangling to make such a demand go away, but the Bible is clear: the Old Testament law is valid, in force, and binding on all Christians today. Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 5:17-18:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
See Bruce, Jesus came to fulfill the law. Now that Jesus has died and resurrected from the dead, the Old Testament law is no longer in force. Not the Ten Commandments? Not the prohibitions against homosexuality? Well, uh, you see, well, uh, anyway, how about them Cowboys?
Notice what Jesus said: Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Go outside, stand in your yard, and look up to the sky. Are heaven and earth still standing? Yep, so that means that Old Testament law is still in force. Remember, when Jesus spoke these words, his “Bible” was the Old Testament. There was no New Testament, no gospels, no writings of Paul. Jesus, the good Baptist that he was, carried with him and read a leather-bound Oxford King James Old Testament. Which is odd when you consider that Jesus was God and he, through his spirit sidekick the Holy Ghost, spoke the words of the Bible into existence. (2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17) Or so Evangelicals say, anyway.
Oh, Bruce, you are nuts. Christians are saved by grace and live under the New Covenant. Hmm, are you saying, then, that the people in the Old Testament were saved differently; that they were saved by works; by keeping the Law of God? Well, uh, you see, well, uh, anyway, how about them Raptors? Bruce, surely you know that God’s law is broken up into three categories; Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial. Really? Where can I find such divisions in the Bible? I’ll wait. Go look. Keep looking. Can’t find anything? Come on, how hard can it be? Don’t quote John Calvin or Rousas Rushdoony. I want it straight from the inerrant Word of God. No luck? How about admitting you are just making shit up to distance yourself from the clear implication of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5: that all Christians are under and obligated to practice Old Testament Law; and that failing to do so is a sure sign that someone is not a follower of Jesus.
Evangelicals, in particular, love to call themselves “people of the Book.” Supposedly, the Bible, from Table of Contents to Concordance, is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. If this is so, why don’t Evangelicals keep the Old Testament law? Why do Evangelicals, in fact, pick and choose what they want to believe from the Old Testament? Why do Evangelicals clamor for the posting of the Ten Commandments on public classroom walls, yet don’t actually believe all ten commandments are binding and in force today? When’s the last time you’ve seen an Evangelical “remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy? Going to church for an hour or two on Sundays AIN’T keeping the Sabbath holy. Sorry Baptists, no NFL on Sundays for Sabbath keepers. Well, wait a minute, isn’t the Sabbath from Friday to Saturday? So, NFL football is okay, but not college football. No Ohio State, Alabama, Texas or USC. Man, talk about suffering for Jesus.
Centuries ago, Christians had the opportunity to distance themselves from the Jewish Old Testament. Instead, they appropriated it for their own, and it hangs around their necks like a millstone to this day. I bet they wish they had a do-over on that one.
Bruce, you are certifiably crazy. Yes, but that’s beside the point. I am sure you are wondering if I have any proof for the assertions made in this post. Quote one theologian who believes this, you say, thinking you got me right where you want me. Well, get ready to have your hemorrhoids massaged, Buddy.
Eminent New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman recently wrote a post titled, Should the Old Testament Even be in the Bible? Here’s an excerpt:
First I must deal with the all-important prior question I have already alluded to. If, very early in their history, Christians chose to bypass precisely the laws and instructions the Bible enjoins on the people of God, why did they see any utility of having the Old Testament at all? If it was outdated, why not simply jettison it altogether?
Early Christians took a number of different approaches to that question. One view can be assigned to the historical Jesus himself and his very earliest followers – the disciples and their converts.
These were Jews dedicated to following the will of God as expressed in the Law of Moses. The Hebrew Bible was their one and only Scripture. It was to be kept. Yes, it had to be interpreted – every legal code has to be. But it was absolutely, and literally, to be followed. All of it: circumcision; Sabbath observance; kosher food laws; festivals.
This view never completely died out. We know of Christian groups who adhered to it for centuries. Some still do today. It is a view placed on Jesus’ lips in Matthew, the very first book of the New Testament, in passages typically overlooked by Christians both ancient and modern who don’t believe that Jesus could possibly urge his followers to keep the Jewish law. But in fact he does, in no uncertain terms – nowhere more clearly than in the famous Sermon on the Mount (ironically, perhaps, revered throughout history by even the most virulent Christian opponents of Judaism):
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill….. Therefore, whoever 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 does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)
How many of the commandments found in the Jewish Scriptures need to be followed? All of them. Even the least of them. No exceptions. In fact, Jesus’ followers have to follow these commandments more scrupulously than the famously scrupulous scribes and Pharisees.
Jesus continues in the sermon to explain just how his followers are to be more righteous than the Jewish religious leaders of their day. Needless to say, it will take special effort. The law says not to murder? You need to go a step farther: you shouldn’t even get angry with someone. It says not to steal your neighbor’s spouse? You shouldn’t even want to. It says to be just in your judgment, and make the penalty fit the crime (“an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”)? You should instead show mercy (“turn the other cheek”).
Christians have tended to read these “Antitheses” as Jesus’ abrogation of the law, but that is precisely wrong. He does not get rid of the law or absolve his followers of the responsibility of keeping it. He does not say: “The law says you shall not murder, but I say you should.” Instead he accepts the literal interpretation of the law and then makes it both more difficult and not simply a matter of external observation. Literal adherence is not enough: doing the will of God as found in the law requires a heartfelt commitment that affects even attitudes, emotions, and desires. But one still has to follow the literal law.
….
Snap, Skippy! Best be reading the Old Testament Law and putting it into practice! Your eternal destiny depends on you keeping every jot and tittle of the Law. I didn’t say this, Jesus did. To quote the plethora of apologists who have dumped loads of raw sewage on this blog, your problem is not with me, it’s with God. I’m only God’s mouthpiece.
Thus saith Bruce Almighty.
If you are not a member of Dr. Ehrman’s blog, I encourage you to join today. $24.99 a year, all proceeds go to charity.
About Bruce Gerencser
Bruce Gerencser, 62, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 41 years. He and his wife have six grown children and twelve grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist. For more information about Bruce, please read the About page.
Thank you for reading this post. Please share your thoughts in the comment section. If you are a first-time commenter, please read the commenting policy before wowing readers with your words. All first-time comments are moderated. If you would like to contact Bruce directly, please use the contact form to do so.
Donations are always appreciated. Donations on a monthly basis can be made through Patreon. One-time donations can be made through PayPal.
A few months ago I told my fundamentalist brother that if he were a true Christian he needed to follow the 600+ laws of the Jews. Of course, he said God gave us the laws to prove that we were literally incapable of keeping them all due to sin. So o guess that excused him to finish his shrimp taco while wearing a mixed fabric shirt.
My thought is that Pauk was so intent on spreading his Good News about Jesus that when he realized non Jews weren’t about to add 600+ laws to their repertoire (with one requiring all the males to mutilate Mr. Happy) that he made the wise marketing decision to ditch the law and declare that Jesus had fulfilled it, making it nullified and void.
From a biblical perspective, I would argue that Jesus pretty much only intended for Jewish Christians to keep the law (and yes, I agree that those passages mean the law should still be followed, but only by those people Jesus came to), since Jesus’ mission while on Earth (aside from the crucifixion, of course) was only meant for Israelites (and proselytes to a certain degree). It seems to me that the Bible teaches that Jesus gave Paul a new Gospel and set of doctrines meant for the Gentile Christians (and Jewish Christians who wanted to follow the Gospel of the Uncircumcision instead of the Gospel of the Circumcision) at some point after his conversion, perhaps while in Arabia.
I’m not trying to convert you here, but if you’d like to see my reasoning for this (since it would be way too much to post here), see chapter 1 of the eBook I wrote a couple years back at https://christianheretic.com/nochurch/ where I lay out why I think the Bible is pretty clear on this, at least if you’re coming at it from a Sola Scriptura/inerrantist perspective.
I can’t for the life of me understand why Jesus would have a different and far more onerous set of expectations for his fellow Jews than he would have for gentiles? That makes no sense at all.
Regardless of the theologians, Matthew 5:17-20 is definitive. It doesn’t allow any wiggle room.
The problem with all the rationalizations is that if any of them were what Jesus had had in mind, he would have said so, or at least would have worded what he said differently. For example, his words in the Matthew citation certainly don’t sound like someone who is giving people a set of laws he knows they can’t follow in order to show them that they’re all sinners. He sounds like he’s telling them what he expects of them, period. When the instructions for Form 1040 seem impossibly frustrating, we don’t interpret that to mean the IRS is giving us rules it knows we won’t follow just to show us we’re all potential tax cheats. At least, acting on such an interpretation would be unwise.
Similarly, after Jesus’s resurrection he ordered his disciples to go and convert people from all nations, so it’s not the case that he came only to the Jews. And if he had meant what he said about keeping the Old Testament law to apply only to the Jews and not to converts won from other nations, he would have explicitly said so somewhere, since that would be a rather important, if baffling, point. But he didn’t.
(Of course I know that even if Jesus existed, which I don’t believe, we have no way of knowing how much of this stuff he really said. I’m arguing from the fictional character of Jesus that appears in the Bible and that most Christians today believe in.)
If you read the O.T. carefully, you’ll routinely read most of the edicts prefaced with “Children of Israel”. One possible interpretation of this is that what is being presented isn’t for the full of humanity, otherwise wouldn’t it say “Children of God”?
Of course the despicable Decalogue is also prefaced with such an exclusionary preface, though this does not stop Christians from putting it everywhere.
I wish I could send this post to every fanatical Christian I know with tattoos of Jesus, Mary, and huge crosses. Talk about willful ignorance…
This is why it always made me irate when they would pull the verse out of Deuteronomy 22 about women not wearing pants (verse 5). One verse they adhere to in that chapter. The rest are thrown out the window. How does that make sense?? I hated that verse even when I was in church (IFB). Still hate it, but even more so the hypocrisy that goes along with it.
It seems whoever wrote Matthew really disagreed with Paul’s flavor of Christianity. The issue of the law within Early Christianity seems to have been a major issue that eventually the Paulian Christians won on for obvious reasons.
This was an issue facing much of Judaism in the first century. They had Pagans who wanted to convert but they didn’t want to follow all of the law ( some of it they were fine with) and for obvious reasons they didn’t want to be circumcised.
In a way this shows just how much Christianity was still very Jewish in the first century.
Spot on, Kris.
The conversion of Paul to Christianity was unusual and of great fortune to the future religion but all the rest is perfectly aligned with what would one expect of cognitive dissonance and end time beliefs. I just see issues such as the law, circumcision , nature of the afterlife as being very similar to the Judaism it sprang from.
I am not arguing there was anything supernatural in Paul’s conversion; just that it was odd. Kinda like you becoming an atheist.
You’re right there is a very non-supernatural explanation. Christianity is like some other religions (and derivative religions) that had their start in an epileptic seizure. In fact Paul’s conversion on the way to Damascus is a text book case. An epileptic attack in the temporal lobes is well known to create a mystical experience.
Do you have any examples of religions that we know started from epileptic seizures?
Plenty of people have mystical experiences without epileptic attacks. I doubt Paul could have functioned well enough if he was having such experiences and furthermore I suspect many would be converts would view him as mad.
I just don’t think this explanation is very likely and certainly there is no clear cut evidence suggesting it.
Kris, In the ancient world epilepsy was sometimes taken as a sign of greatness. Several well respected high profile people were affected (or exhibited symptoms similar a.k.a. “the falling disease”. Julius Ceasar and Alexander the Great possibly had epilepsy, or exhibited very similar symptoms.
As for religious founders/influencers besides Paul of Tarsus:
(In all cases Epilepsy is presumed based on modern diagnosis)
Seventh-day Adventists founder Ellen G. White
Mormon founder Joseph Smith
Old Testament prophet Ezekiel
Joan of Arc along with a few other Catholic saints
Thought fun!!! I have always wanted to ask fundie preachers if there is a particular book in the Bible that they would delete forever from it (if they knew that no consequences from God would ever come their way as a result of making that deletion).
Keying off of Bruce’s main post, I believe Christian Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals would jump like iron filings to a magnet to jettison the Book of Galatians.
Also, I disagree with almost all of Bruce’s post—because it is standard fundie bullshit. I will not launch an counterargument here because I have a policy of not debating with fundamentalists (or former fundamentalists) because it is a waste of time. No one will ever win any argument when debating against a tree stump.
However, it has been my experience with both sets of people (fundies and former fundies) that the:
(1) Current fundie will say: “My church and my beliefs concerning the Bible are the one, only, and true Christianity anywhere on Earth—and everyone who believes anything different from what I believe is not a “Christian,” is lost, and is going to Hell.”
(2) The former fundie (now an atheist, agnostic, or none) will say: “I don’t believe in God, my former church, or the Bible—but I want to make one thing perfectly clear to all of you people—Everything that I once believed about my church, God, and the Bible REALLY WAS the one, only, and true Christianity anywhere on Earth and—everyone who believed anything different from what I believed was not a Christian, was lost, and would have been going to Hell (if there was one). Yes , I deny Christianity!!! But I just want all of you to understand that I left behind the one, only, and true Christianity.”
I have studied Fundieland closely for the past 25 years. Many odd things about it stick out like a sore thumb, but one truly giant sore thumb that sticks out the very most (from my observations) is how extremely deeply and profound the fundie brainwashing process went into little fundie brains, particularly for those who were quite literally born into a fundie church and experienced that exceedingly deep brainwashing from birth into adulthood. Even for those who are now adults and are rightly running away from the fundie experiences of their individual childhoods, they continue to be DEEPLY HAUNTED adults, in both their current mind and behavior, by their past Christian Fundamentalist and Conservative Evangelical experiences. So deep is that haunting—so deep is that haunting—that it might take 1,000 years of psychotherapy—and one would still never get totally past the haunting.
Just a few thoughts.
Charles,
You have worn out your welcome. Calling me a fundamentalist or a tree stump makes me wonder what the fuck you are doing here. Even liberal Christians supposedly believe the teachings of Jesus found in the Bible. Are you saying you don’t? Do you believe what he Bible says about the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If not, how can you call yourself a Christian? Or are you just a cultural Christian?
So, man up, Charles. This post was based on a sound, exegetical interpretation of Matthew 5; an interpretation seconded by NT scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman — who is no Fundamentalist. By all means, show, from the text, how my interpretation is wrong. No ’splaining, just explain the text, in context. But, you’ll have to do that on your blog, since you are no longer welcome here.
You said:
”The former fundie (now an atheist, agnostic, or none) will say: “I don’t believe in God, my former church, or the Bible—but I want to make one thing perfectly clear to all of you people—Everything that I once believed about my church, God, and the Bible REALLY WAS the one, only, and true Christianity anywhere on Earth and—everyone who believed anything different from what I believed was not a Christian, was lost, and would have been going to Hell (if there was one). Yes , I deny Christianity!!! But I just want all of you to understand that I left behind the one, only, and true Christianity.”
You have never, ever, I mean NEVER heard me say anything remotely like this. I would NEVER make such a stupid statement, and neither would any of the ex-Fundamentalists I know. Surely you forget that I did not remain a Fundamentalist/Evangelical, that my theology was quite liberal at the end. And I know how to read. So, I assume your hatred for Fundamentalists — who are your fellow Christians — fuels your repeated strawman attempts to mischaracterize my writing.
As to your psychoanalysis of my past/present, you are not qualified to do this. I have warned you before about doing this. You peer over the fence and judge from afar, thinking you have present/former Evangelicals figured out. You don’t.
I wish you well, Charles, but it is time for you to move on. You have a blog, so feel free to continue to burn straw houses to the ground.
Bruce
I’ve never said anything like that either and in all my years of being online and writing, commenting and reading other blogs I have not heard that from any former fundamentalist.
That second last sentence is “haunting” in and of itself.
For those doubting &/or transitioning away from toxic abusive Christianity of any sort, once can recover and heal. It can take time. Be kind to yourself and patient. You are not a tree stump.
As you wish Bruce. Bibes. However, shutting out my voice does not change anything. You may have left the Christian Fundamentalist and Conservative Evangelical theology far behind—but it is crystal clear to me that your overall fundie past and all of its unwanted baggage from the past still color your perceptions, the way you think, and the way you behave. The way you came unglued last night or this morning after reading my comment was prima facie evidence of it. The treatment you dished out to me is precisely the kind of treatment I would expect from a still-active Christian Fundamentalist preacher today. One word and one phrase: “mean-spirited”and “off the deep end.”
I know you do not give a shit about me, but your response hurt my feelings badly. I am a long-time clinical depression patient, and your misunderstanding-based response is already making me feel depressed—right on the verge of a happy vacation I was about to take with my wife. Yes Bruce. I am angry at the way you responded and that anger is expressing itself as clinical depression because I do not wish to take out a whole evening to verbally dump on you the way you did on me. I would feel a lot better if I did, but I am just not up to doing it this evening—too many other things on my mind. However, it was indeed mostly my fault because I broke one of my own key rules:
“Never engage in a serious debate with an active Christian Fundamentalist, Conservative Evangelical, or a former one who is not totally free from it. Only hurt will ensue—and I will end up being the one most hurt after the exchange of words.”
Sometimes I need to just listen to myself.
Charles,
I didn’t come unglued. Sorry, Dude, but you are seeing things in my writing that are not there. Want to blame me for your depression, so be it. If my words were indeed so hurtful, I suggest that you seek out professional help. All I did was pointedly and directly tell you that you were wrong about me and other ex-Evangelicals. You seem to conveniently forget that you and I have had this discussion before. What am I supposed to do if you refuse to accept what I say at face value and you continue to psychoanalyze me? I asked you before not to do this, yet you persist. The only thing I know to do is force you to stop by cutting off your access to the comment section of this blog. Look, you have a blog. Write to your heart’s content. Surely, doing so will cure what ails you. By all means, rage away against Evangelicals-turned-atheists. Venting is good for the soul, but you will have to do it on your own blog.
I wish you well, Charles. I mean that.
Bruce
Your problem here, Charles, is that you do not actually understand the people with whom you are interacting–no matter how much you may assert that you do–yet try to control them anyway.
That doesn’t typically end well. Perhaps you’d be better off giving up on that ambition?
I myself found myself triggered by your comment Charles. I realized then that it was my responsibility to examine what was going on with me that I was triggered. I place no blame on you at all. It’s my responsibility to check in on my own mental health and in so doing being reminded that we all have issues in our lives even unrelated to the spiritual &/or religious realm.
Charles: That really made me laugh out loud, that, as a deeply deeply dedicated fundy for half a century I am now deeply haunted by having left it. Actually, all I feel is freedom, the truth about the bible’s lies, and that it is a work of fiction is now clear to me and I’m free indeed. It really does feel like I’ve had my chains fall off, my heart is free, as I used to sing about belonging to jesus. Having psychotherapy is about the millionth thing on my bucket list, I’m too busy enjoying life and embracing so many new things I once thought sinful!
When fundy, I read my bible daily, but had a guilty secret, I disliked much of the OT, the violence, cruelty, genocide etc. I told no one, but I read little of it, except I quite liked some of the Psalms. I saw friends deeply immersed in the obscurer bits, like Leviticus or Deuteronomy and claiming god spoke to them personally through them…he never seemed to do so to me. I was a big supporter of a bible translation mission which would translate the NT into a new language and then leave, so these bible-addicts thought these new x-tians had all they needed by having the NT, so I justified it to myself in that way.
I’d like to say to Charles, when I was a fundy I did think I was in the One True Christianity. As I transitioned to a more progressive sect, I realized thar’s what it was – a sect that I was comfortable with. When I left Christianity entirely, eventually I came to believe that it’s all BS and there never was a One True Christianity as Christian’s have been infighting from the beginning.
I wouldn’t say I am “deeply haunted” by my fundy past – more that I think, “what a shame that I was indoctrinated into BS teachings that encourage judging, excluding, and trying to change others”.
Oh. my, flying FSM. I have suffered from depression all my 59 years. Yes, I’ve had my share of words said at me that I didn’t want to hear, and some of them fed my Depression Demon. Sometimes it took therapy to figure out what hurt so much. But I have never, ever, responded to the person who generated those words with a complaint that they fed my depression. My mental health is my own to manage, and I’ll be damned if I’ll try to drag anyone else into it. It’s just effing rude.
Not that I’m averse to getting help to manage my mental health, and I do. But that is a repulsive ploy to trigger someone’s pity, as far as I’m concerned.
Thank you, Karen.
About the “tree stump.”
If I may Bruce.
That kept jumping out at me all day. I kept thinking, what did a tree stump ever do to anyone to deserve a derogatory application? 🙂
What’s so bad about tree stumps? In general, maybe we tend to see them as something in our way. Something we stumble over &/or around. Something to be removed from our sight.
As the day wore on, I actually thought of tree stumps in a natural way. Out of some old (referring to myself here) trees tumps can come great beauty. As the tree wears down and goes through it’s decomposing phase (me again) new soil forms out of which comes new life. Okay yes, sometimes fungi grows on old stumps, but fungi can be quite beautiful in shape and colour. Sometimes wild flowers can grow up through old tree stumps and new tree saplings can take root as well. Sometimes tree stumps provide a home for insects and small animals.
My point is, old tree stumps are beautiful inside and out. 🙂 They aren’t as rigid as one might generally think. Quite flexile and adaptable, in my old tree stump opinion.
In my last attempt to preserve my faith, I joined a Bible study group that included two gay men and a lesbian (that I know of, anyway). They, and the leader of the group, tried to rationalize the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, including the one saying that a man who lieth with a man should be put to death, by invoking “historical context” and other things.
I decided that, contrary to what other members of the group and its leader wanted to believe, the Bible cannot be used as a blueprint for social justice. At best, some parts contradict other parts. At worst, there is straight-up hatred and bigotry in it.
this might not be exactly the ot law, but what about our disastrous foreign policy being based on the idea the the bible is a land contract for Israel? this has done more damage over the past years than about anything else. America supporting Israel and going to war on their behalf at all costs. when does this stop?? American Christians are so deluded by this doctrine that I have been yelled at and accused of awful things by family members when I dared express this idea.
Mary g: excellent comment…I have said the same thing. Here in East Texas, all you have to do is mention Israel, and the xtians all say “amen”, and then wonder in the same breath, why the “Jews” are in control of everything.
Careful, Bruce, if you keep that nonsense up they’ll start keeping slaves, executing witches/ sorcerers/apostates/blasphemers/homosexuals, stoning non-virginal brides and slaughtering non-YHWH believing religions again. Shudder!
It is interesting that Christ only listed six commandments when directly asked which commandments to keep, in Matthew 19.
And then there is Matthew 23:1-3
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. [NKJV, https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/23.htm .]
That is a clear command not only to follow the Old Testament laws, but, where the Pharisees claim to interpret the law, to do also all that they command.
The Old Testament made it clear that its laws were eternal. See https://mindsetfree.blog/dare-to-question/is-the-bible-the-best-moral-guide/ .