As shown in my previous article, morality must come from God in order to maintain a Christian worldview; and divine command theory states that God’s commands establish morality. It is a Christian’s moral duty to obey God’s commands. Whenever a human breaks one of God’s commands, it is called sin.

We must recognize that the concept of sin in Judaism was any violation of the Mosaic Law, since it was believed to have been established by God himself. Sin was not an abstract moral concept, but a matter of disregarding religious imperatives.

When Christianity emerged in the first century, there was often confusion regarding what constituted sin. Some believed that the Mosaic Law was still in effect, while others said it was null and void. This was an especially important issue as Christianity largely became a Gentile (non-Jewish) movement. Many had questions about whether Gentiles should observe the Law, or whether they should observe parts of it , or even whether Jews should observe it at all. In the Bible we can observe evidence of these disputes (Gal. 2; Acts 15:1-29; Gal. 5:1-12; Rom. 2:12-29; 1 Co. 7:17-20).

The question of how much of the Law was to be observed was an important one. After all, if Christianity’s moral system is based upon the commands of God, it is of paramount importance to determine what commands are to be observed. Despite the insistence that God’s commands are found in the Bible, not all of them are considered binding for Christians. This is due to a view called supersessionism; which teaches that since the Mosaic Law (contained in the Old Testament) was established under the old covenant (for pre-Christian Jews only), it is now no longer binding for those under the new covenant (Christians). The writings of Paul and the book of Hebrews teach this to some degree.

However, this cut-and-dry approach is not without serious flaws. For example, if the entire Mosaic Law is now void, what constitutes sin?

The early church grappled with this, and Paul even addressed those who would claim that Paul was teaching lawlessness:

“What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:15-16 NRSV)

Paul upheld the view that sin was still to be avoided. Yet the question obviously still remains: what constitutes sin? How much of the Law is void, and how much of it is still valid? Many would be surprised to learn that in one passage Jesus taught that all of the Mosaic Law would always be binding:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 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.” (Matt. 5:17-20 NRSV)

What is often missed when examining this passage is the fact that Jesus was affirming the continuity of the Mosaic Law. He claimed that he did not come to abolish the Law, which conflicts with Paul’s assertion that he “has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances” (Eph. 2:15). Also, in the context, the “commands” Jesus mentioned could not have been any other moral commands than those contained within the Law. The significance of this is that Paul actually did teach others to break commands of the law (circumcision and the Sabbath in particular); precisely what Jesus warned not to do.

The Mosiac Law could be divided into two basic categories: 1) purification requirements and 2) behavioral prohibitions. After the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE, it became impossible to fulfill all of the purification requirements of Judaism. Many sacrifices and ceremonies could no longer be practiced in the way prescribed in the Mosaic Law. Christianity was no doubt affected by this, as questions regarding observance of the Law could no longer include most of the purification rites.

In contrast, some of the behavioral prohibitions were adopted by Christianity (such as those against sexual immorality and idol worship). But now, with a supersessionist view of the Mosaic Law, how can one establish these moral commands as binding? The church obviously needed to have it’s own set of authoritative rules to establish morality.

I believe this eventually led to the formation of the New Testament. Churches began to accept the writings of certain Christian authors as authoritative, and inspired by God. With this view, the Christian church could now have it’s own binding moral commands apart from the Jewish scriptures.

The church eventually accepted both the Jewish and Christian scriptures as authoritative, although the Jewish writings held considerably less weight. The Christian writers of the first century, such as Paul had become the voices of Christian morality, as Jewish heritage faded into the background. Sin became what Paul and Jesus, Peter, John and James said was sin. They and the early church determined what Christians would retain of the Mosaic Law and what they would disregard.

Although the ten commandments are often used as the foundation for Christian morality, they were a part of the now-defunct Mosaic Law. And the fourth command regarding the Sabbath (Ex. 20:8-10) was specifically made void by Paul (Col. 2:16-17). To this day Christians do not observe the Sabbath in the way prescribed in the Mosaic Law; thus violating the command. Obviously even the ten commandments are no longer binding for Christians. So why does the church still act as if they are? And how did Paul, a mere human, nullify a previous divine command?

As mentioned before, the writings of the early church eventually superseded the Jewish scriptures and the morality prescribed by the apostles and Jesus became the new law per se. Whatever Paul, Peter and Jesus deemed no longer applicable, became void. An amalgamation of Mosaic commands and Hellenistic ideals became the new morality of Christianity.

However, until the rise of protestantism in the early 16th century, the church was governed primarily by the teachings of their leaders, as opposed to a fully authoritative book; although the writings of the Bible were seen as the foundation for beliefs. This transition to biblical infallibility as opposed to church infallibility heightened the emphasis on early apostolic authority.

As I have argued in a previous article, the belief in biblical infallibility and divine inspiration is incredibly circular. There is no compelling reason to believe that Paul and the apostles were infallible when they wrote the New Testament. They were human, not divine. But I believe that for most Christians, the need for an authoritative collection of writings prevails. And that is how religious morality is developed. You choose a book or collection of writings, believe it to be infallible, and hold people accountable to what is written. Even if there is no evidence that the writings of Paul for example, were direct commands from God, the desire for black-and-white morality is stronger. This circularity is no longer desirable or necessary for the shaping of morals in a post-enlightenment world.

Image by Xeneros via Used under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License

Thank you for reading. I’d love to hear from you in the comments.


9 thoughts on “The Law and Sin

  1. Interesting post. There must be something in the water, as I was seriously considering tackling the “morality” issue in regard to atheism. It’s important for us to examine the historicity of the bible, for the religious and non believer alike.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Please do, I would love to read it! I personally believe the first step in developing morality is to deconstruct both the biblical and Hellenistic fallacies which we have grown up accepting. Once we see the flaws we can then have an honest discussion of what morality means to us today.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. One thing that stuck out to me in this article (which may not be what you intended) is the definition of sin. As I wrote in one of my first posts on The Kaleidoscoper, if you ask people to define sin, almost every person will answer differently. Another thing I find interesting is that God is supposed to be free of confusion, according to the Bible – thinking of 1 Cor. 14:33a right now: “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace” – yet the Bible is super confusing in my opinion. Even upon studying the history of passages and their context, confusion remains. So how can the Bible be inerrant? Perhaps not the strongest argument, but definitely something to keep in mind.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for your comment. 🙂

      I agree completely. It actually was the intended purpose, as it is a follow-up of sorts to my previous article The Christian Delusion of Absolute and Objective Morality. So I am glad that my motive came through in the article. Christianity has a confusing moral system, and in the end, I think it ultimately collapses.

      My studies lately have been in the area of philosophical ethics, which is incredibly fascinating, although very complicated. Now, generally speaking, the three main ethical views are: consequential, deontological, and virtue ethics. Consequentialism teaches that the consequences of actions should be the determining factor in our decision-making. Deontology teaches that certain actions are in themselves either moral or immoral, and the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of an act should be the determining factor in our decision-making. Virtue ethics essentially teaches that virtuous actions come from virtuous people, and in essence, the focus should be on becoming a virtuous person, rather than on the actions themselves.

      I have dabbled in all three views, and am still forming my opinion. Christian ethics is a form of deontology. The problem I have with deontology is it’s circularity, combined with uncompromising regarding moral rules. I don’t believe an action can ever be moral in itself. If I hand a starving child a piece of bread, I am not feeding a child as some would characterize it; I am moving my arm first to grab a piece of bread, grasping it with my fingers, then moving my arm again towards the child, and then loosening my grip to let the child take the piece of bread from me. Obviously, there are a lot of actions involved in what we consider to be singular acts; and moving one’s hand can be good in this case, or bad in another. Therefore, it is circular to assume that any act can be in itself moral. Then secondly, the unwavering commitment to moral rules is arbitrary, and ignores the previous conclusion, that actions can be used for any purpose. The ten commandments are nice and all, but in exceptional circumstances ‘do not kill’ and ‘do not bear false witness’ should be ignored (such as killing in defense of your country, or lying to conceal Jews during the holocaust).

      I am leaning towards virtue ethics at the moment, and I plan on writing more about that in the future. But the main gist is that actions can never be moral in themselves, which undermines any attempt to create a moral system based on uncompromising commitment to rules.


  3. TA, another well-written article that I totally disagree with! 🙂

    Basing your discussion on “divine command theory states that God’s commands establish morality. It is a Christian’s moral duty to obey God’s commands” is the beginning, since I think divine command theory as a propositional theory is to be rejected.

    You say: “The question of how much of the Law was to be observed was an important one. After all, if Christianity’s moral system is based upon the commands of God, it is of paramount importance to determine what commands are to be observed.”

    But this is a VERY rigid reading of Christian morality based on very wooden readings of the New Testament (and completely disregarding any foundational material in the pre-Moses biblical narrative in Genesis).

    I really think you are arguing a particular form of Christianity and moralism. As a lifelong believer, minister, and professor of Christian spirituality, I don’t know that I’ve ever bought the kind of Christianity you describe. Frankly, I’d agree with you: that vision of Christian morality is bogus.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am glad to hear that there are ministers who do not ascribe to that form of moral system. Yes, as with all of my articles, a more hardcore conservative background is more of my focus, since that’s where I came from. A fundamentalist view. I am a fan of non-rigid faith systems actually. So we may have more in common than not! 🙂


    1. Thank you! I followed you back.

      You are a very pleasant blogger and I enjoy that. There is too much tension between theists and atheists often. I think both sides can get defensive and make open discussion difficult. I know for me my process of deconverting gave me a lot of negative emotions toward faith that I am trying to get out of my system. I’m not yet where I want to be, as far as letting go of the negative and embracing the positive. I foresee a future where atheists and theists can have respectful conversation. At least I hope that becomes a reality.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s