The Christian and the Old Testament Law
Order Instructions:
This forum focuses on the role of the Mosaic Law in the life of a Christian. The New Testament teaches the law is eternal and will never pass away (Matt 5:17), but that believers in Christ are “no longer under the law” (Romans 7; Galatians 3–4). For this assignment, read the article “Applying the Old Testament Law Today” by J. Daniel Hays and then write a 400-word reflection on what this article has contributed to your understanding of the Christian’s relationship to the Mosaic Law. You may discuss areas of agreement or disagreement, and/or specific issues raised in the article. Does the article help in showing how the Christian uses the law as an ethical and moral guide? Why or why not? This is a reflection on the article, not a summary of its argument, but you must deal with the specific ideas and issues raised in the article.
For the second part of the assignment, write a 250-word explanation of how you would take one of the following passages from the OT law and apply it to your life. In your explanation, your application must reflect what you have taken away from the article and/or what you have learned about ways the New Testament itself applies the commands of the Mosaic Law to New Covenant believers. Be clear and specific in relating how this particular part of the law applies to believers today and make sure that you reflect the basis and reasons for your application.
SAMPLE ANSWER
The Christian and the Old Testament Law
Throughout the ages, the Old Testament (OT) Law has actually caused a lot of interpretive problems for Christians. This paper provides a reflection on what Applying the Old Testament Law Today by J. Daniel Hays has contributed to my understanding of the Christian’s relationship to the Mosaic Law. Areas of disagreement or agreement are discussed, and/or particular issues that Daniel Hay has raised in this article.
Part 1: Reflection on Applying the Old Testament Law Today by J. Daniel Hay
In the article, the author clearly sums up the traditional approach to OT Law that many evangelical scholars and Christians use. Hays’ separation of the Old Testament Law into ceremonial, civil and moral categorizations is a clear and understandable summary, and captures what I have actually observed and read on applying the OT Law to current life. All in all, the article tries to answer the question: How should Christian believers apply the OT law? The answer of Hays to this question is (i) for Christians to follow his own 5-step intricate procedure referred to as principalism; that is, an alternative approach to applying the Old Testament law. (ii) To establish which perpetual moral principle is beneath every single Old Covenant Law; and (iii) to bring that eternal moral principle into the New Covenant.[1] This supposes that (1) each OT Law certainly has a perpetual moral principle beneath it; (2) The Lord expects every Christian to be able to carry out the research needed to objectively perform the task; and (3) each OT Law has to be brought into the New Covenant in such a way.[2]
Contrary to the Dispensation hermeneutic, Hays maintains that every Christian has to apply that which The Lord has specifically restated and reiterated to the Church – the Dispensational hermeneutic – and also that which he believes has to underlie each single law.[3] This task is impracticable and monumental for average Christians who lack a theological degree. In addition, it may discourage Bible study as demanding too much.
This article helps in showing how the Christian makes use of the law as an ethical and moral guide. This is because, as Hays pointed out, a lot of Christians choose to obey some of the laws and disregard others by deciding which ones are relevant or valid and which ones are not. I agree with David Hays that Christians breach the Old Testament Law with some regularity. The OT Laws commonly overlooked by Christians include Leviticus 19: 32: Rise in the presence of the elderly; Deuteronomy 22: 5: A man must not wear clothing of women and a woman should not wear clothing of men; and Deuteronomy 14: 8: Pig is unclean as it does not chew cud though its hoof is split, and their carcasses should not be touched, nor their meat eaten.[4] I agree with Hays that Christians actually comply with some laws and disregard others. For instance, they obey the following laws properly: Exodus 20: 13: do not commit murder; and Leviticus 19:18: love your neighbour as yourself.[5]
Nonetheless, Hays chooses to focus on what Christian believers breach rather than what they actually practice. This way, Hays invites readers to engage in a process of self-justification instead of true examination in the mirror of The Lord’s law.
Part 2: Application of one Old Testament (OT) Law: Leviticus 17: 10 – 14
Leviticus 17: 10 – 14 is essentially a law against eating blood. In this passage, the Old Testament Law stipulates that if any Israelite or strangers in Israel eat any blood, then The Lord would set his face against him or her, and He will cut that person off from amongst his or her people. Blood must not be eaten since the life of the flesh is actually within the blood, and blood is used in making atonement, on account of the life. This passage clearly spells out that any person who hunts any bird or beast that could be eaten has to pour out the blood of that bird or beast and then cover the blood with earth.[6]
Given that mankind has domination over every other creature on this earth, and since blood denoted life, the blood of any animal was to be reserved only for sacrifice to God, the Author of Life.[7] In every circumstance, an animal’s blood was spilled on the alter and offered to The Lord. This way, the taking of the life of an animal meant a turning from self to God, and God’s mercy and providence in caring for mankind. I would apply this law into my own life by avoiding consuming blood whatsoever. Eating animal blood would signify a turning to self; a participation in sin and worldliness; a rebuff of the life that God gave. The people who breached the proscription amongst the people of Israel and consumed animal blood were cut off from other persons. By eating blood, I would not just be made impure by my actions, but I would also become outcast from the people. As such, I will never eat blood.
References
Catholics United for the Faith. The Biblical Prohibition of Eating Blood. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing. 2010.
Hays, Daniel. “Applying the Old Testament Law Today,” in Bibliotheca Sacra, 158, No. 629 (2001): 21-35.
Kelly, Russell Earl. Hermeneutics: Reply to J Daniel Hays. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing. 2011.
Mangrum, Rick. Old Testament Law and Modern Lives. London, England: Thomas Nelson Publishers. 2010.
[1] Daniel Hays. “Applying the Old Testament Law Today,” in (Bibliotheca Sacra, 158, No. 629, 2001), 22
[2] Russell Earl Kelly. Hermeneutics: Reply to J Daniel Hays. (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing), 10.
[3] Daniel Hays. “Applying the Old Testament Law Today,” in (Bibliotheca Sacra, 158, No. 629, 2001), 26
[4] Ibid, 21
[5] Ibid, 21
[6] Rick Mangrum. Old Testament Law and Modern Lives. (London, England: Thomas Nelson Publishers. 2010), 76.
[7] Catholics United for the Faith. The Biblical Prohibition of Eating Blood. (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing. 2010), 3.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
