What do the Scriptures say about old covenant laws?

Dear Friends and Family in the Faith:

We just finished a very inspiring and productive conference with the U.S. regional pastors and international regional directors. The conference focused on pastoral core competencies, the dynamics of institutional and personal change, paradigms of pastoral leadership and insights on relational evangelism. Whether or not it sounds trite to say so, everyone I talked to felt this conference was by far the most meaningful and helpful one we've ever had in the church. Regional leaders will be using the information and skills gained from the sessions as they serve and mentor pastors in their areas.

Six new regions have been formed with six new regional pastors. This will spread the workload and, most importantly, provide a more intimate and meaningful working relationship between each minister and regional pastor. We are pleased to welcome Keith Brittain, Garvin Greene, Rand Holm, Don Lawson, Bob Persky and Ken Williams to their new duties as regional pastors! Details about the new regions are shown in a map of U.S. churches on page 5.

In this letter, I thought it would be helpful for me to comment a little further on two passages of Scripture that explain that Christians are not required to keep old covenant laws. Distorted explanations of these passages are sometimes proposed, so let's examine them to see what these passages are really saying.

The first passage is Acts 15. Just what was being discussed at this Jerusalem council, and what was concluded? Let's read it again and notice the context, starting in Acts 14:27. Paul and Barnabas had just completed their first missionary journey, and in Antioch, the sponsoring church, "they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles." After that, Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch a long time (verse 28).

The church at Antioch was composed both of Jews and gentiles. Luke describes the development of that congregation in Acts 11:19-26. Church members who fled from Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen preached the good news to both Jews and gentiles, and many believed. Barnabas was sent to Antioch to pastor the church, and the church continued to grow. Barnabas recruited Paul to help teach the church.

The zeal and enthusiasm shown in Antioch by Jews and gentiles alike was a great example of Christianity. In fact, it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. They were distinct enough from the Jews that even nonbelievers could tell there was a difference. They spoke about Christ so much that they were called Christ-people.

Everything was just fine in Antioch until some self-appointed teachers went from Judea to Antioch. They taught the gentile Christians, "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). However, circumcision was only the beginning of their agenda.

In Jewish thought, circumcision was the sign of accepting the old covenant. If a person became circumcised, he would be obligated to obey the entire old covenant law (Galatians 5:3). This was made very clear when the circumcision party presented their demands in Jerusalem: "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5).

The dual demand is clear--it included both circumcision and the law of Moses. A few people have done grammatical gymnastics with this verse to try to get away from what it says. Out of the thousands of Greek experts in the world, there may even be one or two who propose a different translation. That is a suspicious way to use scholarship, of course, to choose an unusual interpretation, which isn't supported by any published translation, just because it supports the point someone wants to argue.

The argument I'm referring to is the idea that the Jerusalem discussion was not about whether to keep the law of Moses, but whether it was necessary to be circumcised in order to keep the law of Moses. In this argument, both sides of the debate supposedly took it for granted that gentile Christians were to obey the law of Moses. In other words, they all, including gentiles, would circumcise their eight-day-old boys. The only question was whether the law of Moses required adults to be circumcised.

I hate to spend much time on this view, but perhaps it will be helpful to discuss it briefly for those who have heard it. First, it does not make sense to argue that Christians must keep the law of Moses. That would mean, just as a starter, that they must wear tassels.

I've used this example several times before, but let me quote it again: "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the Lord, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes' " (Numbers 15:38-39).

The command is clear. The purpose is good. If the law of Moses is required for Christians today, I cannot imagine how anyone can get around this command.

Another problem of this argument is that it says that circumcision is still required for infants. But circumcision is not a religious requirement for either adults or their babies. It does not enhance anyone's standing before God (Galatians 6:15; Romans 2:26).

Physical surgery does not help anyone, either adults or babies, to come to faith in Christ. The only circumcision that counts is the circumcision of the heart. (More information about this is in the study paper about circumcision published in the Feb. 21, 1995, Worldwide News.)

God never commanded the gentiles to circumcise their children. The early church did not command them to circumcise their children either. The early Jewish church, of course, continued to circumcise their babies. In fact, they continued to keep all the old covenant laws, including the ones that are now obsolete. Acts 21:20 shows that the Christians in Jerusalem were "zealous for the law."

Which law were they zealous for? Their concern, verse 21 tells us, was the teachings of Moses, circumcision of their children and the traditional customs of Judaism. They were concerned about a rumor that Paul was teaching Jews to abandon these customs.

To counteract that rumor, they wanted Paul to participate in a purification rite in the temple. Their concern shows that all the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were keeping the customs found in the law of Moses--customs like purification rites and shaving their heads and temple rituals. The Jewish Christians were doing a lot more than we have to do today.

But even the zealous Christians were not concerned about what Paul was teaching the gentiles. They were not concerned about whether he taught them to circumcise their children, shave their heads and do other customs of the law of Moses. All that had already been decided (verse 25, quoting Acts 15).

Gentiles do not have to keep the law of Moses. Of course not! God commanded all those rules for Israel. He gave no such commands to the gentiles, and first-century Jews did not expect gentiles to keep all those laws, because God didn't command the gentiles to do those things. (Further discussion of the "law of Moses" can be found in the May 23, 1995, Worldwide News.)

The early church concluded that adult gentiles do not have to be circumcised. The implications of this are far-reaching, since no one could participate in the old covenant Passover without being circumcised (Exodus 12:43-49). So the early church decided, for one thing, that gentiles did not have to keep the old covenant Passover.

In one sense, there is nothing particularly dramatic about that decision. Although God allowed gentiles to participate in the Passover if they became circumcised, he never required them to. The early church simply recognized this fact.

They were not saying that gentiles did not have to obey God--they simply said that God did not require the old covenant Passover for them. He did not then, and had not before Jesus came, too. God did not require gentiles to keep a festival designed to commemorate an event in Israelite history.

At the Jerusalem conference, the question was about which laws were required for gentiles. It did not concern the question of which laws Jews should keep. Apparently the church did not yet know that the old covenant was obsolete for Jews as well as gentiles. Even in Acts 21, we see the Jewish church still zealous for the old covenant.

As law-observant Jews, they continued the customs of Moses right alongside faith in Jesus as Messiah. They continued to sacrifice animals and pray in the temple. They would have attended synagogues to hear the Torah and the Prophets and then met in their homes to discuss the Christian significance of those Scriptures.

As Jews zealous for the law, the early Christians in Jerusalem would have sacrificed Passover lambs according to the law of Moses and partaken of bread and wine in commemoration of the death of their Savior. They would have done both.

In other words, they did not view the bread and wine as a replacement for the old covenant festival, but as an addition to it.

If they had viewed the bread and wine as a replacement Passover, then they would have required gentiles to be circumcised, because the law clearly said that circumcision was necessary for participation in the Passover.

But if they viewed the bread and wine as a separate memorial, then there would be no need for circumcision. Apparently they viewed it as a separate memorial.

The early church recognized that God did not command gentiles to kill lambs and celebrate the Exodus. They would have equally recognized that God did not command gentiles to commemorate the Exodus by putting leaven out of their homes.

God did not require gentiles to celebrate the harvest seasons of the land of Canaan. He did not require them to keep the old covenant festivals, either before Jesus came or afterward. This is consistent with the rest of the New Testament.

Several passages of the New Testament show that major portions of God's law for Israel are no longer required.

Hebrews 8:6, for example, shows that Jesus established or founded a new covenant. Hebrews 10:9 shows that when he established the new, he set aside the old covenant. Hebrews 8:13 says clearly that the old covenant is obsolete. Part of God's law has been set aside.

We see something similar in Galatians: Part of the law was added because of transgressions, and it no longer has force over us (Galatians 3:19-25). Which law is Paul talking about here? The law that was added 430 years after Abraham (verse 17). That part of God's law has been set aside.

Acts, Galatians and Hebrews are discussing the same laws. The old covenant is the law of Moses, which was added 430 years after Abraham. That's the part of God's law that God himself has declared obsolete. Acts and Galatians tell us that gentiles do not have to keep these laws; Hebrews explains that Jewish Christians don't have to, either.

No one has to keep the law of Moses requiring tassels. No one has to be considered unclean after childbirth or after touching a dead body. No one has to make tree-branch booths no matter what the law of Moses said. No one--not even Christians who live in the modern nation of Israel--has to go to Jerusalem three times a year.

I'll continue this in the next issue.