OT laws

[kayanne]

the question of how we are to regard OT laws is one that I have wrestled with for a long time. it seems like there are certain OT verses that many christians will use to support a particular conviction or opinion (ie alcohol, women wearing dresses vs pants, tithing) yet the vast majority of OT verses seem to be, for the most part, ignored. for instance:

Deuteronomy 22:5-125 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. 6 If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: 7 But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. 8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. 9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an *** together. 11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. 12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.
i've heard a lot of christian ladies refer to this verse as support for their belief that it is sinful for a woman to wear pants (v5); but these same people don't harp on clothing made of wool and linen (v11), or rules about building a house (v8), or any of the rest of this section.



i honestly don't know what we are to "do" with the OT, in terms of applying it to our lives. some people say we are still to follow the whole bible, but as i pointed out with the above passage, we sure don't do that. some people say that jesus fulfilled the OT law, and now we just live by NT commands. but that doesn't make sense to me in light of
Matthew 5:17-1917 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

please share your thoughts

 

[kayanne]

anyone?

 

[P_G]

Welcome to the edge of the Messiainic waters dear sister!

This is where you ask the question "Why can we break some of the rules and it's ok but not others"

I asked myself those same questions a few years ago.
I asked others too
I never got a really good answer.

Something about not one jot or tiddle passing away really bugged me.

Pray about it sis
Ask a lot of questions

You will never be saved by the law
but you may well be blessed by it!


Pastor George

 

[BT]

Kayanne you come up with some great questions. Let me give you a real bad answer

The OT issue is one of what is called "Continuity and Discontinuity". Ok some super-geekish theology student terms right... basically it teaches how somethings (could be laws, prophecies, teachings) of the OT continue into the NT and somethings do not (discontinue) into the NT and our age. This does not pertain to certain concepts or lessons that we learn from the OT, more to the "covenants" etc.

Which continue and which do not? Sister if you figure that out you are miles ahead of me . Though there are some clearly defined things that are distinctly said to discontinue in the NT (such as animal sacrifices). A good kind of diving-board question to one who believes in total discontinuity is "So I guess the 10 commandments aren't to be kept then right?" Ack! That makes 'em think.

Now if you want to get off of the theology lesson for a moment, let's address these ladies in your church and in several others who refer to the OT in part to support the particular beliefs of that fellowship.....

BAAAAHHH (that's a buzzer).. they are wrong....

In a different post I gave those of this board problem 1 with Fundamentalism; "We have become to known for our polemics (fighting, debating) and not well known enough for our apologetics (ability to gently lead and teach)."

You have brought us to #2 (thanks )

The second problem with fundamentalists is that we become slaves to mechanical thinking.... let me define it better than that..

We start off with a policy (like women not wearing pants) at a time when the policy fits with being "seperate" from society. We hold this policy for a number of years until it becomes the norm. Somewhere along the way this policy becomes a law. Instead of saying "Our ladies don't wear pants, because the "worldly" ladies wear pants" we say "Our ladies don't wear pants because that's what God says". This becomes our own manufactured law that we defend tooth and nail. We as fundamentalists must learn to break this trend. I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE NEED TO BECOME MORE LIBERAL. I'm saying that we have to determine what rules or ordinances are from God, and which are from Man. If you have an ordinance that is from man, and you want to keep it. Feel free ... just don't run around saying it is from God.

Ok now back to your question about why they use part of the verse to support their idea.....

There are (in very general terms, there are others that are like stems) two methods of interpretation... Dogmatic, and Plenary

Dogmatic interpretation works like this - "I believe in (insert belief) so now let me find some scripture to back it up." This method of interpretation is WAY BAD and leads to cultism (such as JW's and Mormons amongst others).

Plenary interpretation works like this - "Let's see what the Bible says in plain usage, considering the grammatical, historical, social etc. settings. From this I will form my beliefs."

Now plenary interpretation has been the trademark of fundamental Baptists for years and years and years, and I hope years to come.. However, every once in awhile I see some folks slip into dogmatic (especially when their "rules" come into question).

Ok I think I went a bit everywhere on that post and if you are twice as confused as ever I apologize. I'll be glad to clarify anything that I can. I do have some books on Continuity and Discontinuity but I'm afraid they would confuse you more than help (since that's generally what they do for the rest of us).

Hope this helped in at least some way.....

Maranatha,

BT

 

[eutychus]

The Old Testament's main purpose for Christians is to show us the fulfillment of Jesus Christ and how Christ was the climax of everything God constructed before He came to earth. It tells us of God's characteristics, the calls God places on the lives of His children, and even gives examples of how to be hearers and doers of the word as his prophets demonstrated. While the OT is very applicable to our NT lives, its laws are under the old covenant, and therefore, null because we are covered by the blood of Jesus.

Matt. 5:17-19 finds Jesus telling his disciples that he has come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Torah + Books of Prophecy), yet in his next sentence he makes the contradictory statement that righteousness is based on the Law in v. 19. One can understand, though, that the new covenant had not been put into place until Jesus' resurrection, and until that blessed day, the Law would be in action and would have to be followed not only for the sake of holiness but also to remind his followers that his "hour had not yet come." Then, as Heb. 8:13 states, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."

Those are my thoughts, anyway.

 

[kayanne]

thanks to those of you who shared your thoughts. it was helpful.

but i'm still confused regarding
Matthew 5:17-1917 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

eutychus, you said the law was in effect until Jesus' resurrection, but verse 18 says "til heaven and earth pass." can you shed some more light on this?

 

[pressingon]

Some interesting discussion, including my viewpoints on this issue may be found in the comments on the following entry in my blog (you'll have to click on the comments link at the bottom of the post):
http://e4god.com/freeblogs/pressingon/archives/m/20031006

Basically, the OT laws identify sin and illustrate that we are incapable of fulfilling the Law ourselves. Christ came, not to abolish the law, but to fulfill the Law so that we could experience salvation through our faith in Him. Does that mean we're not subject to it? For salvation... no. It is still valid in identifying sin, however (by my understanding, at least).

All of this, of course, is debatable. It's definitely something I want to ask God about when I get to heaven (one of MANY things, actually).

 

[FreeinChrist]

The Law was fulfilled with the death and resurrection of Christ, and it is now found in life with Christ.

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; Rom 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law {comes} the knowledge of sin. Rom 3:21 But now apart from the Law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, Rom 3:22 even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Rom 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
The Law was a teacher and showed what sin was, but the Law was, also, a picture of what Christ would do -
He is the Bread of life - OT example is the table of shewbread in the Holy Place.
Jesus is the way, the door - there was one door to the Holy Place.
Look at the Day of Atonement - one goat is freed (the scapegoat) and one is sacrificed (think Barrabus and Jesus in Pilate's court)
Christ was the atoning sacrifice and His blood was offerred in the Holy of Holies in heaven :
Hbr 9:11 But when Christ appeared {as} a high priest of the good things to come, {He entered} through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;

Hbr 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Are we under the Law as given to Moses, though? No. We are children of Abraham by faith, and are under a law of faith.
Rom 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Judaizers were trying to bring the Galatian church under the Law, trying to get them to circumize. Read Paul's response.
Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Gal 2:17 "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!

Gal 2:18 "For if I rebuild what I have {once} destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

Gal 2:19 "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.

Gal 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the {life} which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

Gal 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness {comes} through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed {as} crucified?Gal 3:2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?Gal 3:5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?Gal 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."Gal 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."Gal 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--Gal 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
There are Judaizers around today who would try to bring us under the Law again. There are those who are trying to add laws to faith.
However, there is also written in the NT that we are to live in the Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy peace... and the Law was fulfilled by Christ, and the Ten Commandments are fulfilled by living in the Spirit... by love for God and for others.

This has probably been a bad explanation...but i hope it helps.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

the question of how we are to regard OT laws is one that I have wrestled with for a long time. it seems like there are certain OT verses that many christians will use to support a particular conviction or opinion (ie alcohol, women wearing dresses vs pants, tithing) yet the vast majority of OT verses seem to be, for the most part, ignored. for instance:

Deuteronomy 22:5-125 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. 6 If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: 7 But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. 8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. 9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an *** together. 11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. 12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.
i've heard a lot of christian ladies refer to this verse as support for their belief that it is sinful for a woman to wear pants (v5); but these same people don't harp on clothing made of wool and linen (v11), or rules about building a house (v8), or any of the rest of this section.



i honestly don't know what we are to "do" with the OT, in terms of applying it to our lives. some people say we are still to follow the whole bible, but as i pointed out with the above passage, we sure don't do that. some people say that jesus fulfilled the OT law, and now we just live by NT commands. but that doesn't make sense to me in light of
Matthew 5:17-1917 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

please share your thoughts

Kayanne,

I must disagree with BT on just one part. The part about Man's law and God's word.
Taking the verse and situation that you mentioned above, one can say either its a principle thing, or a custom thing.
I believe that God was trying to teach us a principle thought the law by saying that women should not dress like men and that principle is modesty. God does not want us to be ungodly by dressing provocitivly.
I do attend a "no pants church" I wear a skirt because my pastor asks us to. He never says your not a christian, your not saved, and your not apart of our church because you wear pants. I had struglged with this issue many times. Now I feel that if my pastor is "interpreting" that verse wrong, all he and I are really doing is overly obeying. I would rather obey too much than to NOT obey a principle and be disobedient. I hope this makes sense.
Many claim the term legalisic because of the pants thing when its more of a principle thing rather than a law thing.
GEL

 

[@@Paul@@]

Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.

So what does "fulfill the law" mean?...... To me, it means that Christ "carried out" the law. i.e. kept every jot and tittle...

We can not earn our salvation BY the law, someone has already done that for us.

1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;​

 

[theseed]

But that is where churches err. As I understand it, men prefer to see women in skirts. So in actuallity, pants are more modest.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

But that is where churches err. As I understand it, men prefer to see women in skirts. So in actuallity, pants are more modest.

EHEM.:o
You can see the shape of a womans behind in a pair of pants. you can see how her legs and buttocks are shaped. Skirts cover the bottom of the ckeeks of the rear end so this is why they are concidered more modest.
GEL

 

[@@Paul@@]

EHEM.:o
You can see the shape of a womans behind in a pair of pants. you can see how her legs and buttocks are shaped. Skirts cover the bottom of the ckeeks of the rear end so this is why they are concidered more modest.
GEL

And if some guys imagination runs wild seeing how "her legs and buttocks are shaped" ... who's bad is it?

 

[theseed]

EHEM.:o
You can see the shape of a womans behind in a pair of pants. you can see how her legs and buttocks are shaped. Skirts cover the bottom of the ckeeks of the rear end so this is why they are concidered more modest.
GEL

Because you can see her legs, not covered. Well, unless you are talking about long skirts.

Also, the same logic applies to men. Why don't men where skirts too?

 

[@@Paul@@]

Because you can see her legs, not covered. Well, unless you are talking about long skirts.

Also, the same logic applies to men. Why don't men where skirts too?

they do remember,, they are called cassocks.

 

[theseed]

they do remember,, they are called cassocks.

Or kilts

 

[BT]

Kayanne,

I must disagree with BT on just one part. The part about Man's law and God's word.
Taking the verse and situation that you mentioned above, one can say either its a principle thing, or a custom thing.
I believe that God was trying to teach us a principle thought the law by saying that women should not dress like men and that principle is modesty. God does not want us to be ungodly by dressing provocitivly.
I do attend a "no pants church" I wear a skirt because my pastor asks us to. He never says your not a christian, your not saved, and your not apart of our church because you wear pants. I had struglged with this issue many times. Now I feel that if my pastor is "interpreting" that verse wrong, all he and I are really doing is overly obeying. I would rather obey too much than to NOT obey a principle and be disobedient. I hope this makes sense.
Many claim the term legalisic because of the pants thing when its more of a principle thing rather than a law thing.
GEL

I'm not sure which part you disagree with?

Your pastor has it right and you have it right. You must obey, that is the bottom line.

My point was (and this does not pertain to your church) that there are pastors and churches who will say that you are not a christian or not saved and I recently heard of a pastor who announced this from the pulpit

"If I even see you walking downtown with pants on, you will no longer be a member of this church."...

It's these guys that I'm really worried about... not churches like yours. As a point of clarification women in my church wear skirts or dresses to church.. pants to whatever else. My wife has several pair

 

[kayanne]

Your pastor has it right and you have it right. You must obey, that is the bottom line.

clarify a bit please. are you saying the pastor is right in saying it's not a salvation issue, or are you saying he's right to ask the women to not wear pants, or that he has the right to ask the church to follow any of his convictions or preferences or OT laws or whatever else he asks of them?
and when you say gel must obey, are you saying she must obey whatever instructions the pastor gives?

My point was (and this does not pertain to your church) that there are pastors and churches who will say that you are not a christian or not saved and I recently heard of a pastor who announced this from the pulpit

"If I even see you walking downtown with pants on, you will no longer be a member of this church."...

oh my. that is so disturbing i don't even know what to say. that kind of control gives me the creeps. leads to things like the jim jones situation. i'll never understand people who let someone else do their thinking for them like that.
just to be clear, GEL, this was not a thinly disguised comment toward you! i'll admit that i think it's wrong for a pastor to require any of the OT law in a pick-and-choose sort of way. but that comment bt quoted about being kicked out of the church---makes me want to give all of those ladies pants and running shoes! run ladies!! fast!!

 

[BT]

clarify a bit please. are you saying the pastor is right in saying it's not a salvation issue, or are you saying he's right to ask the women to not wear pants, or that he has the right to ask the church to follow any of his convictions or preferences or OT laws or whatever else he asks of them?
and when you say gel must obey, are you saying she must obey whatever instructions the pastor gives?

Sure Kayanne I can clarify it.

This was the portion of GEL's response that I was looking at...

I do attend a "no pants church" I wear a skirt because my pastor asks us to. He never says your not a christian, your not saved, and your not apart of our church because you wear pants. I had struglged with this issue many times. Now I feel that if my pastor is "interpreting" that verse wrong, all he and I are really doing is overly obeying. I would rather obey too much than to NOT obey a principle and be disobedient. I hope this makes sense.

So what she is saying is that, IF her pastor is interpreting the verse (about women's dressing) wrongly, and she is following his understanding wrongly. They are guilty of only 'over-obeying'. Since the principle as they understand it is sound. GEL apparently had a struggle with this and made the decision to trust in the leadership of her church. This is good, and right.

Now to answer this part of your question:

"are you saying he's right to ask the women to not wear pants, or that he has the right to ask the church to follow any of his convictions or preferences or OT laws or whatever else he asks of them?"

In my experience, the pastor of a Baptist church adopts the position of "servant leadership". When a pastor wants to set an ordinance or church guideline he will bring it before the deacons, along with the scriptures that he feels apply, and his exegesis if necessary. The deacons, or sometimes the whole church, will vote on the issue and pass or fail determines if it sticks.
Do I believe this is right? Yes, I do. We do not run like the catholics, with one person making up all the rules as he goes, or even like some other denominations who have governing councils. We are autonomous (I'm speaking of Independent Baptist churches..), we make our own guidelines in each church, according to the guidelines of the Bible. Your pastor is the spiritual head of your church, he was voted in to lead you (again I'm speaking of Independent Baptist churches, or Baptist churches who candidate pastors).

Obedience is the teaching of the New Testament, and being a servant, and dying to your own will. When in doubt obey. I fully agree with GEL's stance on this. She was confused about it and decided in the end to simply obey.

So must she obey the instructions that the pastor gives her? Yes, so long as they are Biblical, (which this issue of pants is, one way or the other). Of course she doesn't have to obey her pastor if he directs her to do something that is clearly sin, or anti-biblical. But to matters within the church you must submit yourself to the authority of your pastor. The Baptist pastors that I know have an "open door" policy, so if there is something that came up with that you disagreed with you should be able to talk to them about it. They certainly aren't dictators (like you see in many denominations). Again, this is from my experience.. there could very well be dictators in Baptist pulpits, but I think that's a shame.

I don't know if that clarifies it or muddy's it. Let me know if you need more clarification, it's not a problem.

 

[BT]

oh my. that is so disturbing i don't even know what to say. that kind of control gives me the creeps. leads to things like the jim jones situation. i'll never understand people who let someone else do their thinking for them like that.
just to be clear, GEL, this was not a thinly disguised comment toward you! i'll admit that i think it's wrong for a pastor to require any of the OT law in a pick-and-choose sort of way. but that comment bt quoted about being kicked out of the church---makes me want to give all of those ladies pants and running shoes! run ladies!! fast!!

Yeah you are right. This guy is very wrong. I believe that the deacons confronted him after he said this. It's not my church so I don't know the outcome.. but this is the kind of thing that causes people to leave (and I can't say that I blame them). Churches have split over this kind of nonsensical preaching......