This content has been archived. It may no longer be relevant
“Take note – I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing if you take to heart the commandments of the Lord your God that I am giving you today, and the curse if you pay no attention to his commandments and turn from the way I am setting before you today to pursue other gods you have not known.”
Deuteronomy 11:26 – 32
Within Christianity, for longer than I or anyone reading this has been alive, there have been two predominant views on “the law”. That is the Torah, or the Law of God given through Moses at Sinai.
The first view holds that the death and resurrection of the Messiah rendered the Old Testament laws and systems invalid. The idea being that, by the legal requirement of sin being fulfilled, the Old Testament Instructions ceased to be a relevant, binding body of law.
The second view holds that those portions not directly tied to the Temple and Sacrificial Systems are still valid and binding. There are variations to this, but the general consensus is that those portions of the law which do still apply, apply only to “the Jews”.
In either case, the theological net-effect for the “gentile” Christian is the same; the law does not apply.
The perspective we adopt on this issue has far-reaching implications on the entirety of our theology. Whether we get many, of not most things right or wrong is dependent in some way, on whether we get this right or wrong.
The record of the Exodus tells us that a “mixed multitude” fled Egypt along with the Israelites. To be clear, this would represent of body of peoples from a myriad of backgrounds and ethnicities within the political reach of Egypt in that day. To the point, this group of individuals are decidedly not Israelites:
The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth. There were about 600,000 men on foot, plus their dependents. A mixed multitude also went up with them, and flocks and herds – a very large number of cattle.
Exodus 12:37 – 38
It is noteworthy that, even at this stage, provision already existed for the presence of non-Israelites among the assembly.
When a foreigner lives with you and wants to observe the Passover to the Lord, all his males must be circumcised, and then he may approach and observe it, and he will be like one who is born in the land – but no uncircumcised person may eat of it. The same law will apply to the person who is native-born and to the foreigner who lives among you.”
Exodus 12:48 – 49
The context of the passage makes it clear that this commandment applies to anyone desiring to observe the Passover. This applies regardless of lineage.
Interestingly, the provision for non-Israelites to observe the Passover was circumcision. For a “gentile” to observe the Passover, he was to put the seal of the Covenant with Abraham in his flesh and the flesh of all the males of his household. In so doing, he would be “like one who is born in the land …”
“Throughout your generations every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not one of your descendants. They must indeed be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money. The sign of my covenant will be visible in your flesh as a permanent reminder.”
Genesis 17:12 – 13
The passage in Exodus is the first explicit appearance of a “one law” commandment in scripture. Clearly though, the provision for the circumcision of gentiles was not new, or unique to the circumstances.
Some other “one law” commandments include:
… “If any man curses his God he will bear responsibility for his sin, and one who misuses the name of the Lord must surely be put to death. The whole congregation must surely stone him, whether he is a foreigner or a native citizen; when he misuses the Name he must be put to death.”
Leviticus 24:15 – 16
“One who beats an animal to death must make restitution for it, but one who beats a person to death must be put to death. There will be one regulation for you, whether a foreigner or a native citizen, for I am the Lord your God.”
Leviticus 24:21 – 22
“If a resident foreigner lives among you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, he must do so according to the statute of the Passover, and according to its custom. You must have the same statute for the resident foreigner and for the one who was born in the land.”
Numbers 9:14
“If a resident foreigner is living with you – or whoever is among you in future generations – and prepares an offering made by fire as a pleasing aroma to the Lord, he must do it the same way you are to do it. One statute must apply to you who belong to the congregation and to the resident foreigner who is living among you, as a permanent statute for your future generations. You and the resident foreigner will be alike before the Lord. One law and one custom must apply to you and to the resident foreigner who lives alongside you.”
Numbers 15:14 – 16
I could go on, but I think I’ve made the point; there are clear applications within the body of the law to non-Israelites. I would also argue that this principle exists both explicitly (as in the provided examples) as well as implicitly.
Consider that last quotation from Numbers 15. This passage deals with sin specifically; both intentional and unintentional. It states that it applies to Israelites and non-Israelites alike: “One law and one custom must apply to you and to the resident foreigner who lives alongside you.”
The question becomes, what is sin?
1 John 3:4 provides the most succinct definition:
“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; indeed, sin is lawlessness.”
Many translations render this lawlessness as “transgression of the law”. In either case it is clear that sin is disobedience to the law; knowing or unknowing, intentional or unintentional.
A broader definition of sin would be “rebellion against God”, which would infer a rejection of His commandments or instructions. The first example of this took place in the Garden of Eden:
“Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”
Genesis 2:16 – 17
As a result of their disobedience, Adam and Eve (Havah in Hebrew) both died. Their rebellion brought them under the curse of the law, exactly as God forewarned.
Deuteronomy, chapter 9 provides another illustration of this concept:
“Remember – don’t ever forget – how you provoked the Lord your God in the desert; from the time you left the land of Egypt until you came to this place you were constantly rebelling against him.”
Deuteronomy 9:7
So we see that there are indeed commandments that apply (or at the very least did apply) to non-Israelites, and that violation of them by said non-Israelites constituted sin. This raises yet another question; are those commandments which are explicitly stated to apply to non-Israelites the only ones that did?
In Exodus, chapter 20, we read the report from the encounter at Sinai. God descended on the Mountain with lightning, thunder and the blast of a shofar; the mountain smoked as God spoke, giving the ten commandments to the entire assembly. Quite the scene, and yet the resident foreigner is only mentioned once; and that in relation to the observation of the Sabbath.
If we apply the explicit mention of the non-Israelites as requisite for the application of the commandment, do we not imply that it would be permissible for a resident foreigner to steal? Would it not then be permissible for them to engage in idolatry, covetousness or even to commit murder? Would this not be antithetical to the entire spirit and intent of the commandments in the first place?
I submit that it is.
I contend that explicit mention is not requisite for determining the application; context and logic are.
Exodus chapter 21 commences with a number of “decisions”, “rulings”, “judgments”, “ordinances” or similar terminology depending on version or translation. These continue through chapter 23 and all pertain to the application of justice, decency in conduct, personal responsibility and accountability to the community as a whole.
For the sake of brevity, I won’t quote these verses here. Suffice it to say that no delineation is made between Israelites and non-Israelites throughout this portion of the text. The sole exception to this being chapter 21, verses 2 – 6 which deal with the release of a Hebrew bond-servant (slave) after six years of service.
To say that the body of law presented throughout this portion of scripture didn’t, or doesn’t apply to non-Israelites exempts them from wrongdoing for a multitude of offenses: assault and battery, manslaughter, vandalism, kidnapping, destruction of private property, fornication, witchcraft, bestiality, animal cruelty, usury (excessive interest), blasphemy, perjury or false-witness, bribery and oppression – just to name a few.
I doubt anyone would argue that as a valid assertion.
The book of Leviticus begins by laying out the fundamentals of the sacrificial system; burnt offerings, grain offerings, sin offerings, guilt offerings, peace offerings and so forth. These ordinances do not explicitly address non-Israelites. As previously stated however, the means through which we determine applicability is not always a matter of explicit mention, but of context and logical thinking…
Leviticus 4:27 – 35 lays out the instructions for conducting a proper sin offering – the means by which an individual could atone for unintentional sin or transgression. We know that resident foreigners could sin by transgressing the commandments. Would not the rulings of the sin offering therefore be available to facilitate their atonement?
Of course they would:
“This is to be a perpetual statute for you. In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you must humble yourselves and do no work of any kind, both the native citizen and the foreigner who resides in your midst, for on this day atonement is to be made for you to cleanse you from all your sins; you must be clean before the Lord. It is to be a Sabbath of complete rest for you, and you must humble yourselves. It is a perpetual statute.”
Leviticus 16:29 – 31
Given the context and explicit instruction given here (pertaining to the annual Day of Atonement), the prior is a correct interpretation.
Leviticus 11 deals with dietary instructions, delineating between what is “clean” and “unclean”. Chapters 12 through 15 immediately move in narrative to dealing with personal and corporate hygiene, the treatment and quarantine (when necessary) of infectious disease and the purification of individuals and households.
Are we to suppose that this is by happenstance or mere coincidence? I think not. I see an ordered, logical flow of instruction intended to keep the people, and thereby the entire assembly, free from unhealthy living conditions and disease.
From this perspective, one can see the obvious and logical application of these tenets to the Israelites and non-Israelites alike. This, even in the absence of explicit mention. The idea is that, if the resident foreigners were not subject to dietary and hygienic regulations, the health of the entire assembly could be jeopardized.
Leviticus 18 introduces regulations regarding inappropriate sexual relations; namely prohibiting intercourse between close family members. To exclude non-Israelites from these commandments would essentially be to condone incestuous relations for those not of direct Israelite lineage…
“No man is to approach any close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the Lord.”
Leviticus 18:1
In accordance with my assertion that context and logic are the means through which we determine legal applicability, let’s look at this passage logically:
“No man…”
This commandment is spoken to men, but which men? The passage does not state explicitly; would it therefore be logical to assume that this applies to all men or only to Israelite men? I contend that the context indicates “all men” regardless of ethnicity or lineage. Furthermore, I believe this is obvious and that no serious student of scripture would argue otherwise.
I could go on, but it is not my desire to belabor the point. Likewise, this is not intended to be a line-by-line review of every commandment. My purpose is to illustrate that the Mosaic law did indeed apply to non-Israelites regardless of their explicit mention. Furthermore, it has been to illustrate what illogical doctrines result from the opposite assertion; doctrines I would call heretical.
As we move forward, I believe it will become clear as to why understanding this is foundational and why it is relevant to every believer today… even on the “other side” of the cross.
שלום עליכם – Shalom Aleichem – Peace Be Upon You