Bill Gothard claims in the first night of the Basic Seminar that his teachings are based in Deuteronomy 28. He says, “God has laid out a series of principles…laws…and if WE violate these laws, He will bring certain consequences to us as a nation. And he gives us a list of these consequences. The motivation is to get us back to these laws. But if we continue to violate these laws, He said He will bring another set of consequences.” (Basic Seminar, Session 1)Deuteronomy was written as a covenant contract which God was renewing with the second generation of Israelites before they entered into the promised land. Chapter 28 promised national blessing if they obeyed and national cursing if they disobeyed.
Gothard claims that Christians should not to eat meat and milk at the same time. He bases this twisted teaching on Exodus 23:19 where God commands the Israelites not to cook a goat in his mother’s milk. Bill also taught that all men ought to be circumcised, not eat the unclean animals listed in the Mosaic law, and not to sleep with your wife during her menstrual cycle (Leviticus 15:19).
What is Bill’s underlying assumption? That Christians OUGHT to OBEY Old Testament law given in Exodus-Deuteronomy. But is this a valid assumption? Are we, as Christians, obligated to obey EVERYTHING the Old Testament taught? This is a tricky theological question – one that scholars have argued and debated for centuries. However, the Bible is not without some answers.
Our Bible is divided into two sections – the Old Testament and New Testament. The word “testament” could equally be translated “covenant”. Hence, the Bible tells the story of two covenants. One covenant was made in the book of Exodus to the Children of Israel (Exodus 24) and the second one is made to the Church (Luke 22:20). God prophesied a CHANGE in the covenant made to Israel by the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The very nature of a second covenant means that it succeeds and supplants the first one.
The Apostles make it clear in the New Testament that we are not bound to the Old Testament law. Allow me to post some scriptures to make my case:
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”… 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them… 10 “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?”… 22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter… It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. (Acts 15:5-29)
In the passage above, the Jerusalem elders make a significant ruling – that gentiles (non-Jews) were NOT obligated to follow the Mosaic Law (beyond the four listed). This ruling is consistent with other statements made the Apostle Paul.
Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace. (Ephesians 2:12-15)
Above, Paul is talking to a gentile church. What did Paul say separated gentiles from God? The Mosaic law (v. 15). What is God’s solution? The new covenant in Christ. Notice how it says that Jesus “set aside” the law.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ…16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ… (Col. 2:9-17)
Here, Paul emphasis again that “in Christ” Christians have been brought to spiritual fullness. He blatantly tells them to not fall prey to Jews who insist that spirituality is wrapped up in following the Mosaic law. The references to eating and drinking relate to the Old Testament dietary laws. Physical circumcision has been replaced by baptism into Jesus. The festivals, celebrations, and Sabbaths were all features of Old Testament law. Paul makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that gentile Christians are not obligated to follow these Old Covenant commandments.
Now, is all this to say that rules are not important? No. Just the opposite. Paul’s overarching point is that we are now living under a different covenant, in a different age. We are no longer in the age of Mosaic Law, we are in the age of the Messiah’s reign. Jesus is our messiah and our lord. Christians are not free to do whatever they want, they are free to walk in the Spirit of Christ. Our responsibility is to obey our Messiah. There is such a thing as sin, but it is not eating pork, or sleeping with your wife during her cycle. Sin is failing to obey Jesus’ commands.
This is why Paul said, “To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.” (1 Corinthians 9:21) When Paul was evangelizing, he felt free to drop his Jewishness (expressed in Old Testament regulations), in order to be more effective in witnessing. Notice, if Paul’s desire was to convert the gentiles to following the Old Testament law, this would have been totally illogical. However, Paul’s goal was not to turn gentiles into Jews and thus, had no problem with dropping his kosher habits when witnessing to them. However, the crucial statement comes when Paul says, “I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law”.
Did you see it? Paul did not feel obligated to follow the Old Testament law anymore, but he DID see the LAW OF CHRIST as binding upon himself. The priesthood has changed. Jesus is our new, eternal high priest. And with the change in priesthood comes a new law. “For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.” (Hebrews 7:12)
In conclusion, Gothard’s view that Christians should follow the Old Testament law neglects to take into account the new covenant and the CHANGES the new covenant brings with it. We are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law, we are under the rule of the Messiah. In the words of God the Father on the mount of transfiguration, “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” (Mark 9:7)
July 31, 2024
Couldn't have said it better :) I do find in the NT, often much more general rules vs the very specific and detailed rules of the OT. As though intended for the difference b/tw one controlled by a list of externals, vs one controlled internally by the Holy Spirit. I do firmly believe that in the NT, the focus is no longer on rules, but on a relationship with God through Christ. Paul states that the OT law was there to bring us to Christ, but now that Christ has come, the law has served its purpose.
Yes, Christ, as God the One who never changes, decided to change His mind on what is right and wrong. If you didn't catch it, that is sarcasm.
Christ did not come to abolish, but became the fullness of the law in the flesh. "I am the way (Tora), truth, and the life..." He not only affirmed the OT law, but firmly showed it was even more general than His specifics! Paul seemed general in his "laws" because Paul, like everyone else recognized (or should have) that no man has the right to legislate. So, he is generally restating the OT law when he talks of anything in the epistles, the source being "the Scriptures". David, in Psalm 119 restates in every single verse how he loved God's word/law. Realizing that David, a man after God's own heart, only had the first five books of the OT (Genesis and God's laws)on which to meditate. And even having Genesis, he's waxing poetic about God's judgments and His statutes. May we one day meditate on the same things David did and have the same excitement.
I do understand Paul's issues with the gentile churches and the Jewish converts. Do we circumcise? No. That was a sign of the old Covenant. Old laws replaced by new sacraments. There are only, two: communion(replacing the festivals and feasts) and baptism (replacing circumcision). What determines right and wrong in a general moral sense? The only thing we can look to is the law. When God commands to worship using a tabernacle, it is a shadow of things to come, right? But when He says, "if a man do X, he shall be burned by fire", what is right here?
Rushdoony, in The Institutes of Biblical Law strongly accused the Reformation of being stillborn because our reformers, Luther and Calvin refused to go all the way with giving authority to Scripture. The issue in their time was still a separation of church and state, essentially the divine right of Man to legislate. We need to correct this error.
Paul isn't speaking in too general or vague of a manner here, is he? =)
"Some have departed from these(love,..a pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith-vs5) ...and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good IF one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made NOT for the righteous (i.e.,not the norm for NT Christians) but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful..."
(1 Timothy 1:6-11.)
Somehow, this discussion in the comments sounds familiar? We've been here before, eh? =)
I am NOT a biblical scholar in any way, shape, or form. But we recently studied the scripture in Luke where Jesus heals the woman at the synagogue who has been crippled by an evil spirit for 18 years. The women is rebuked by the synagogue leader for allowing Jesus to heal her on the Sabbath. To which Jesus replies, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it to water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, be set free from the spirit who bound her?" (Luke 13:15-16 NIV). In other words, he pointed out to the Jewish leaders that they were missing the whole point of the law! When following the letter of the law becomes so important and all-consuming that we fail to understand the law's original intent (in this case the Sabbath was created for man to bring him/her closer to God), we have a problem.
Keeping the law NEVER saved us, neither the Israelites in the OT (their faith and God's mercy preserved them) nor the NT Christians. Good thing, because none of us can truly keep the law! The law exists to show us our sin. BG is right in that there are consequences for sin, and we are called away from sin. But BG has all his followers staring at the guardrails on the road for fear of running off the track, instead of watching the lead car up ahead (Christ) and going the way He goes because we want to be with Him! God desires our good works and obedience to flow out of a loving relationship with Him, not out of fear of sin or its consequences.
Of course that is skirting the issue of how to make those everyday decisions, big and small, if we desire to honor and obey Christ. My problem with BG is not that he has ideas to protect us from sin, it's that he passes them off as GOD's commandments, and that he implies, suggests, alludes, or outright claims that there are things we can do to make God love us more or love us less. I know many have trouble feeling sorry for him for even a moment, but I think it would HELL to be BG. He has got to be so bogged down in feeling not good enough, not worthy enough, etc. that his soul is in torment! I think the facade of having all the answers and being confident in his salvation, is just that, a facade, which makes me really sad for him. He outwardly believes his own lies, but deep down he has to know.
Anyway, the way I understand it, the LAW never changed, just the conditions of the covenant. Those under the Old Covenant still had a debt to pay for not keeping the law, whereas New Covenant Christians have had their debt paid in full. Therefore, those laws having to do with being "unclean" are no longer required because we have been washed clean by the blood of Christ.
I would LOVE for those greater minds out there to let me know if I have that right?
Galations saved us from getting entangled in Seventh Day Adventism.
/////////////////////////////////////////////so how did we get caught up in the teachings of BG many years later? Was it being in a group of people who all thought the seminar was the greatest thing to come to the church ever?
[...] in the womb, though they certainly weren’t so keen on Gothard’s more radical tenets, such as adhering to Mosaic dietary law. It wasn’t until I was about to turn five that they presented me with the idea of homeschooling. [...]