Help me understand something, once and for all! (Mosaic law vs.new law)

[EternalotnemeM]

From time to time, I hear people use bible verses which speak of the old Mosaic law, to help them prove that certain things are forbidden in this day and age. You know the ones that are quite popular, especially the ones which speak of homosexuality. The same people go on to say that other laws from then are void, and they do not apply to us.

I understand the entire new law concept, what Jesus did, etc... What I am having a hard time understanding, is how so many pick and choose what they wish to abide by from the old testament.

Is there a basis on what we DO accept from that time period and what we reject now? To finally understand this would help me greatly in talking to atheists about the Bible, witnessing to them.

 

[Riddick]

the 10 commandments is the character of God. unalterable. they are the nature of God, as he always has been and as he always will be. unchanging, unalterable.

atheists like to make crazy hyperlinks to "books of the bible" which they think should be in the bible. they'll hyperlink anything in attempt to make it the bible, watch those characters.

 

[EternalotnemeM]

I'm not speaking of the Ten Commandments. I'm talking about the laws concerning servents, sexual acts, food, and so on.

How can some people use the verses concerning homosexuality yet not follow the verses concerning other laws, etc...?

 

[Phoebe]

Hmmm...I am hoping that I can phrase this correctly.
The Mosaic laws centered on the letter of the law. It had to be followed religiously. Jesus represents the spirit of the law. If we love the Lord our God with all our being, and love our neighbors as ourselves, it all falls into place. Love can do no wrong. (the Ten Commandments)
When reading OT law, you can almost hear the Israelites saying, "But what if this happens," or "What if that happens? How do we deal with it?" It practically had to be spelled out for them. They had been held captive for so long that they apparently lost the ability to make their own decisions. They had difficulty dealing with their newfound freedom.
Example: Joseph found out that Mary was with child. The child was not biologically his. It was his right, according to Mosaic law, to divorce Mary. However, it was not something that he had to do. The angel convinced Joseph that he should follow the spirit of the law and keep Mary as his betrothed.

A verse that might help with this is Mark 3:28, 29 or Matthew 12:31. All sin is equal in the sight of God except for blashemy against the Holy Spirit.


As for dealing with atheists, suggest to them that they read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

 

[Lotar]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you mean how do we determine which laws we keep and which are no longer required; the cerimonial law is no longer required of us. Basically that covers the laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness, dietary laws, and various ritual laws. Laws of morality still apply.

If you mean what is the difference between the old covenant and the new; those under the old covenant were bound by the Law, and their salvation was dependant on their obediance. Those under the new covenant are no longer bound by the Law, we obey the Law out of love for God and what He has done for us.

 

[Phoebe]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you mean how do we determine which laws we keep and which are no longer required; the cerimonial law is no longer required of us. Basically that covers the laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness, dietary laws, and various ritual laws. Laws of morality still apply.

If you mean what is the difference between the old covenant and the new; those under the old covenant were bound by the Law, and their salvation was dependant on their obediance. Those under the new covenant are no longer bound by the Law, we obey the Law out of love for God and what He has done for us.

You said it so much better! How do you do that?

 

[JVAC]

That is true Kim!!

When doing things we must question how it glorifies God! Does it bear fruit, or is it self-serving?

 

[Flynmonkie]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you mean how do we determine which laws we keep and which are no longer required; the cerimonial law is no longer required of us. Basically that covers the laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness, dietary laws, and various ritual laws. Laws of morality still apply.

If you mean what is the difference between the old covenant and the new; those under the old covenant were bound by the Law, and their salvation was dependant on their obediance. Those under the new covenant are no longer bound by the Law, we obey the Law out of love for God and what He has done for us.

Very well put!

 

[countrymousenc]

Kudos, Lotar!

 

[EternalotnemeM]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you mean how do we determine which laws we keep and which are no longer required; the cerimonial law is no longer required of us. Basically that covers the laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness, dietary laws, and various ritual laws. Laws of morality still apply.

Then what about the laws concerning children, wives, murderers, *******s, the death penalty, servants, and on and on?

EDIT: The word that was censored automaticly wasn't anything horrible, so don't get the wrong idea about me, lol. It is a Biblical word, I just wanted to make that clear before anyone thinks I'm being horrible.

 

[Lotar]

Then what about the laws concerning children, wives, murderers, *******s, the death penalty, servants, and on and on?

EDIT: The word that was censored automaticly wasn't anything horrible, so don't get the wrong idea about me, lol. It is a Biblical word, I just wanted to make that clear before anyone thinks I'm being horrible.

It is important to not mix commands given to Israel's theocratic government, and moral laws given to believers.

So it is still wrong to be disobedient to your parents, but you shouldn't have the town stone your children if they are. The first was a command to us, the second was a command to Israel.

 

[EternalotnemeM]

I still am not getting it. So which ones are we to actually go by and which ones are we to not?

How about the verses about homosexuality and the death penalty? How about all of the talk of servants, mixed fabric clothing, and on and on and on?

I just need to find out once and for all which of these verses are fine to use when talking to other people about certain subjects. I'll say "well the Bible says this", they'll mention one of the outlandish things from the same part of the Bible, and I'm stuck. I could say that

I'm sure I'm not the only one with this problem.

 

[CapturedBC]

What I am having a hard time understanding, is how so many pick and choose what they wish to abide by from the old testament.

I think what we need to understand here is that there are three types of law in the OT. There is the moral law, which is binding on all people at all times and always was, even before it was articulated through Moses. The moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments, but certainly it is expounded upon beyond that summary. Second, there is the ceremonial law. The ceremonial law sets Israel apart as the people of God chosen to bring forth (in the human sense) the Passover Lamb. All the ceremonial law looks forward to Christ and teaches of Him and sets Israel apart as His people. Then there is also the civil law that God gave to govern the nation of Israel.

Of these three and how they relate to us: The moral law is binding upon us, as it always was, though through Christ we are free from the condemnation of it when we fail to keep it. (Though we are bound to keep it nonetheless.)

The ceremonial law passed away when Christ fulfilled it through His sacrifice. To perform the ceremonial law now would be to continue to look for a Redeemer and deny that Jesus was He. This has been replaced by ceremony that looks back at what Christ has already done (baptism and the Lord's Supper).

The civil law of Israel is a model for us as we attempt to apply the moral law to our political lives, but it is not binding in the strict sense. We must look to it for principles. (As an example, the civil law of Israel required a parapet, a fence, around the roof. We don't sleep on our roofs, and our guests are not in danger of falling off them, so it is not an applicable law for us. However, the same principle might apply to putting a fence around our swimming pools and thus protecting people from danger.)

So then the question becomes, which laws are which. This requires careful reading. But in general I can give a few tips and perhaps someone more knowledgeable could suggest others. If the law is stated with civil penalties, (stoning, restitution, etc.) it is a civil law. If it is stated with a description that includes statements that indicate that this law sets Israel apart from other nations, or points to God's saving work, then it is a ceremonial law. If it is stated along with statements that indicate that something arouses God's anger or is an abomination to Him, then it is a moral law.

I hope that helps.

 

[Lotar]

I still am not getting it. So which ones are we to actually go by and which ones are we to not?

How about the verses about homosexuality and the death penalty? How about all of the talk of servants, mixed fabric clothing, and on and on and on?

I just need to find out once and for all which of these verses are fine to use when talking to other people about certain subjects. I'll say "well the Bible says this", they'll mention one of the outlandish things from the same part of the Bible, and I'm stuck. I could say that

I'm sure I'm not the only one with this problem.

We are held to the moral law, that is it.

The law against homosexuality is a moral law, so it is still applicable, while the death penalty is a law concerning Israel's government, so it is not.

If the law has to do with some legal aspect of a servant or slave, then it is not applicable, but laws concerning how a servant or slave should behave are still applicable.

Ceremonial laws like mixed fabrics, dietary laws, laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness are no longer applicable. So, most of what is listed in Leviticus are no longer laws that are required of us.

 

[EternalotnemeM]

Ok, I get what you mean now, but get ready, lol.

My next question, is this.

Why exactly do you say that very specifc thing? Where in the Bible do you get the verses to stand up for what you just told me? I need to know, so that I can tell others just as you have done here for me.

 

[CapturedBC]

Ok, I get what you mean now, but get ready, lol.

My next question, is this.

Why exactly do you say that very specifc thing? Where in the Bible do you get the verses to stand up for what you just told me? I need to know, so that I can tell others just as you have done here for me.

I'm not sure if this was addressed to me or someone else...But when we read the law we need to read what GOD says His purpose is. There is no easy answer. You just have to take each section as it is written. God gives the ceremonial law and sometimes says things should be an abomination to "you." [Israel] (Not to God) This is the ceremonial law that is later nullified.
Example: Lev. 11:10-11 declares that seafood other than fish "shall be an abomination to you." The following verses declare that eating other "unclean" animals would make one unclean. Clearly, these verses are nullified because in the NT, Peter (Acts 10: 9-15) is told to eat them. There is a difference because sometimes God tells Israel what "you" must do, as God's chosen nation set apart, and sometimes He speaks globally.

Compare this to Numbers 18:22-23 These verses state that sodomy and beasteality are abominations and perversions. He does not say they shall be abominations, "to you." He says they ARE abominations. And in verse 26 we see that He applies this law not only to Israel, but also to those outside Israel.

Again, there are no quick comebacks to answer atheists in chat rooms. It takes careful study and a sincere desire to know the law and please God through Christ. Atheists in debates don't need most to know whether the parapet law was civil, ecclesiastical, or moral. (They don't care, anyway.) They need to know that they are sinners and Christ is their only hope of escaping the just penalty for their sin.

 

[EternalotnemeM]

Anyone else got any thoughts on this subject?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I disagree with the deliniations used to show what parts of the Law we are under. They are not mentioned once in the New Testament and are essentially man made. We are subject to the NT command and nothing more. The whole of the ordinances against us was nailed to the cross. Paul covers everything we need to know that wasn't covered by Christ himself. Most if not all is covered as well in the moral law that some say we are still under but I would challenge them to find any place where these lines are drawn when Paul is talking about the Law. You could study the New Testament and never open the Old and still live according to God's will. Having the OT makes it easier as we can look and verify what is said in the NT but what is not there anywhere, in either part fo the Bible, anything that says any of the Mosaic Law is still binding on us.

However Paul does say the Law is God's perfect will. So we have a dichotomy here that becomes very interesting. Christ and Paul cover the basics of what we need to know and if you want to see what the meat of it is you go back and look at the OT. One main point about the heavy ten is that they are part of the Law and are covered by the two commandments Christ himself told us were the most important and following them would fulfill the Law. So if we have the two that are the most important then why would we need anything else? I don't know. Dr. Greg Bahnsen makes a good case for civil government being based on the laws given concerning that in the Mosaic Law but it is not a case founded in it being the Law but rather a casse founded in that it works and works well.

The entire Mosaic Law was a covenant with Israel and not with Gentiles so it has never been binding on us as Christians. We have a duty to follow what is taught in the New Testament as the New Covenant, but we are told to teach the spirit of that and not the letter, for the letter kills. That being said we can look to the Old Law to define sin, that is exactly what Paul says it does in fact, but we have to filter said Law through the New Testament and apply it to our daily lives that way. It is much easier to see things this way than it is to draw lines around certain parts of the Law and apply them to Christians today. We can see what parts are things we need to know in our daily lives and what are not by comparing it to the New Testament and going from that point.

 

[countrymousenc]

The Old Covenant was a "type and shadow" of the New; therefore there is a living relationship between them. The Old Testament is not a dead book. It helps us understand the New Covenant just as the New Covenant sheds light on things whose meanings were obscure before Christ came. In Christ we are no longer condemned by the Law, but that does not make the principles (or spirit) of the Law wrong or obselete. What was morally wrong (displeasing to God) under the Law of Moses is still morally wrong, but the Church has different (new) ways, spelled out in the New Testament and by the Church Fathers, of dealing with trespassers.

For us, the Law above all laws is the Law of Love, and we turn to the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments to learn how to obey it.

 

[Warrior Monk]

The Old Testament is the Word of God. The arrival of the Messiah did not suddenly cause the Ten Commandments to expire...

Sodom and Gomorrah are the only two nations in the Bible that God destroyed utterly. Homosexual Sodomy will be a damnable sin from now until Apocalypse.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13

War is NOT a sin. Turning the other cheek refers to a slap on the face, not to Holy War. It is required that we slaughter our genocidal mass murdering Saracen enemies.

Deuteronomy 7

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Gir'ga*****s, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Per'izzites, and the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2 and when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:

3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

Numbers 31

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Mid'i-anites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Mid'i-anites, and avenge the LORD of Mid'i-an.

4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.

5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.

6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phin'ehas the son of Ele-a'zar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

7 And they warred against the Mid'i-anites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8 And they slew the kings of Mid'i-an, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Mid'i-an: Ba'laam also the son of Be'or they slew with the sword.

9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Mid'i-an captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses and Ele-a'zar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13 ¶ And Moses, and Ele-a'zar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Pe'or, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Christ says explicitly that forgiveness and tolerance of evil is not required:

"He that is not with me is against me." -- Matthew 12:30

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." -- Matthew 18:6

"[Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" -- Matthew 23:33