Which parts can you ignore in the OT?

Matthew 5:17-19 - 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.' 'till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven'

This is the first for OT laws part of the new testament that I could think off.

sacredsin said:

Eh not necessarily approved, but not condemned either.

No condemnation and they went on to build different tribes.

Click to expand...

LOL - one of which was the Ammonites who were among the very people Leviticus 18 condemns for their abominations. The other was the Moabites who were condemned by God to annihiliation. Just because someone isn't struck dead by lightening the moment they commit their sin doesn't mean they are not condemned.

gengwall said:

LOL - one of which was the Ammonites who were among the very people Leviticus 18 condemns for their abominations. The other was the Moabites who were condemned by God to annihiliation. Just because someone isn't struck dead by lightening the moment they commit their sin doesn't mean they are not condemned.

Click to expand...

Leviticus was written much later though, wasn't it? Different societal values, different writer, different reasons most likely related outside of incest.

WittyBanter said:

sacredsin:

That sums up my thoughts of it as well. The OT God was really into letting you know when he was angry. Earlier in that same book, he vaporized an entire city of sinners. You would think that he would have said **something** about the incest. It was kinda his modus operandi.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

OK

Abraham - not sure, have to study that one more.

Same with Amram

Amnon brutily raped Tamar. Do you really think that is an example of God approved incest?

Rebekah was Isaac's cousin (or cousin once removed, it's hard to tell with the translation and I did not research it further). No violation of Leviticus there.

Sorry - cross posted. Moving on.

gengwall said:

OK

Abraham - not sure, have to study that one more.

Same with Amram

Amnon brutily raped Tamar. Do you really think that is an example of God approved incest?

Rebekah was Isaac's cousin (or cousin once removed, it's hard to tell with the translation and I did not research it further). No violation of Leviticus there.

Sorry - cross posted. Moving on.

Click to expand...

Well as for Amnon, the Bible also calls for the stoning of prostitutes and the killing of witches. I don't rather like the thought of myself or others on similar paths being murdered due to a verse in a book. I was pretty sure that it was against Leviticus to sleep with your cousin too.

I'm wondering why a tribe was named after a fossil and which came first.

gengwall said:

My understanding, which is admittedly lacking, is that the law is broken up into different categories for different purposes. The overriding law is God's moral law which is summed up in the Ten Commandments but is then clearly illustrated by Jesus in the two principle laws - Love God and love your neighbor. In essence, if you do that, you can't help but be in compliance with the rest of God's moral law.

There were additional laws regarding temple worship, regarding cleanliness and health, and regarding the attempt at raising Israel to a pure model theocracy that the rest of the world could look to. On top of all of that was a series of case law that basically applied all of that to decide individual cases and establish precedents.

The important fact is that the New Covenant did not abolish God's moral law. Jesus said in fact that he came to fulfill the law, not do away with it. Paul repeatedly turns to the law as our ongoing guide to understand our sinful state. It is only the laws dealing with certain things in context of culture and period which the New Testament deemed inapplicable. But none of that changed the base moral law of God.

Click to expand...

I see this claim cropping up from time to time but when we ask for biblical evidence to support this division we get nothing. The best response I ever got to that requests was (and I am paraphrasing here ) “if you were a real Christian you would just know”

the responses get worse when one asks about the logic of these divisions and where certain laws “fit”

WittyBanter said:

We seem to have gotten rather off track though. My point is that people are not following the OT anymore, except perhaps as a historical document. As much fun as discussing incest is, perhaps it's another thread waiting to happen.

Click to expand...

Well I see a lot of people referencing the OT…but mostly it is done to inflict these laws onto others, not necessarily laws those citing the OT laws follow themselves

gengwall said:

OK

Abraham - not sure, have to study that one more.

Same with Amram

Amnon brutily raped Tamar. Do you really think that is an example of God approved incest?

Rebekah was Isaac's cousin (or cousin once removed, it's hard to tell with the translation and I did not research it further). No violation of Leviticus there.

Sorry - cross posted. Moving on.

Click to expand...

First off rape in the bible is never viewed as a particularly bad thing.

God often presents the Israelites the opportunity to rape as a reward for winning a military conflict.

Also there are several places in the bible where rape is used to force women into marriage.

Rape is only viewed as “bad” when it becomes a property crime. Basically the single instance where the rapist is punished in the bible has nothing to do with the rapist violating a woman, it had to do with taking property (the woman) from another man.


As for Tamar. She had the bad taste to not deliver a male child before God killed her first husband Er. She was not raped by Onan, they were just following God’s design for the family. Tamar was expected to submit sexually to her brother in law Onan until she produced a male child, which would have been considered to have been fathered by her first husband Er. Onan was punished by God not for raping Tamar, he was punished for practicing birth control, and thus not fulfilling his duty.

In the first few years of my being a Christian, I was implicitly taught that the parts of the Old Testament that we are amenable to today are the 10 Commandments and Lev. 18:22, 20:13

10 Commandments
Exodus 20:2-17

1. Ye shall have no other gods before me
2. Ye shall make no graven images (idols to worship)
3. Ye shall not use the name of the Lord in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy
5. Honor your father and mother
6. Ye shall not murder
7. Ye shall not commit adultery
8. Ye shall not steal
9. Ye shall not bear false witness
10. Ye shall not covet what is your neighbor's

BigBadWlf said:

First off rape in the bible is never viewed as a particularly bad thing.

God often presents the Israelites the opportunity to rape as a reward for winning a military conflict.

Also there are several places in the bible where rape is used to force women into marriage.

Rape is only viewed as “bad” when it becomes a property crime. Basically the single instance where the rapist is punished in the bible has nothing to do with the rapist violating a woman, it had to do with taking property (the woman) from another man.


As for Tamar. She had the bad taste to not deliver a male child before God killed her first husband Er. She was not raped by Onan, they were just following God’s design for the family. Tamar was expected to submit sexually to her brother in law Onan until she produced a male child, which would have been considered to have been fathered by her first husband Er. Onan was punished by God not for raping Tamar, he was punished for practicing birth control, and thus not fulfilling his duty.

Click to expand...

You're mixing up your bible stories (there's more than one Tamar in the bible). Maybe you should study it better before commenting on it.

BigBadWlf said:

I see this claim cropping up from time to time but when we ask for biblical evidence to support this division we get nothing. The best response I ever got to that requests was (and I am paraphrasing here ) “if you were a real Christian you would just know”

the responses get worse when one asks about the logic of these divisions and where certain laws “fit”

Click to expand...

As I said, I haven't studied the different components and categories of the law well enough to comment other than to identify that components and categories exist. Even a cursory glance at the law shows that. At any rate, I will leave it to others much more informed to parse it out for you. My lack of study hardly proves that it can't be parsed, nor does your absence of analysis showing its supposed uniformity.

Are you going to address post#20 in this thread Gengwall?

WittyBanter said:

Which parts can you ignore in the OT?

Click to expand...

Whenever I read a book I find myself thinking "what a wise thought" when I read a sentence I agree with, and thinking "this is stupid" and ignoring that which I disagree with.

WittyBanter said:

Do most of you view the OT as a kind of "history lesson" or do you still have to follow the rules within? I don't know too many people that will not touch menstrating women, and many Christians eat shrimp, so it seems that at least some rules have been dropped over the years.
Is there a process for dropping OT rules? Is it pretty much only if Jesus specifically mentions one?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I think the NT law of Love overrides/replaces the OT laws of cleanliness and even the 10 commandments (because it encompases the commandments). To me the OT laws were more about protecting people from illness than actually about what is and is not "sinful" or "evil".

That being said, each man must listen to his heart and God in him for what he sould do. If someone is moved to keep the old rules, by all means, go for it.

WittyBanter said:

Do most of you view the OT as a kind of "history lesson" or do you still have to follow the rules within? I don't know too many people that will not touch menstrating women, and many Christians eat shrimp, so it seems that at least some rules have been dropped over the years.
Is there a process for dropping OT rules? Is it pretty much only if Jesus specifically mentions one?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

This is a very good question that doesn't have a simple answer. Also, I won't be able to give you a definate answer because I'm currently going through the process of asking this myself. Here are a few helpful ideas, though:

There seem to be a few types of laws in the Old Testament. Some laws are moral laws (ten commandments). Some laws deal with clean and unclean things (whatever this could mean). Some laws are cultural and relevant to religious practices (animal sacrifices, temple worship). Important questions to ask are these: why did God issue these laws? and what you've asked: which apply today and how do they apply? This can even be asked concerning God's moral laws.

I believe it's clear in the New Testament that in first century palestine there were many Jews who didn't get the point of the law. Jesus was crazy. He blatently did many things that shattered very religious people's conceptions of the law. He touched lepers (unclean people). He was a friend of sinners. He healed people on the Sabbath. Jesus says something interesting to the Pharisees concerning the primary intention of the law:

John 5:39-40 said:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Click to expand...

So we may draw that the law is useful, but God did not give it to us primarily so that we would follow it perfectly and thus be justified before him. The law testifies about the grace of God in Christ. Also, in Romans 1-5 Paul constructs an argument that basically says that people have always been considered righteous before God because of their faith and not because of their strict obedience to the law.

Anyway in answering your question: I don't think God expects me to follow religious laws in the Old Testament because their purpose was to testify about Christ. He is the true and better sacrifice. I don't think God calls me to follow laws concerning cleanliness because he has declared all things to be clean (Acts 11:9). God does call me to follow his moral laws, but only in as much as I am obeying the greatest commandments. Someone once asked Jesus what the most important commandment was and he replied thusly:

Matthew 22:37-40 said:

And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Click to expand...

Therefore God is unconcerned about us following the law and totally concerned with the condition of our hearts. Does this make sense? The greatest commandment has nothing to do with what one does. Rather, it has everything to do with what one loves. Have I glossed over anything?

If the OT was written by God, then how can we decide what is still useful or not useful for us? That seems very convenient. Of course, I am absolutely in agreement that one should not keep slaves, or that brides who are not virgins should not be stoned, but if we choose to pick what suits us as society changes, what does that say about the truth of the Word? If we are asked to believe that there are major predictions about the future of our species in the text, why wouldn't God have known that times would change, and perhaps only include a moral code that would be eternally relevant? Did people "back then" need more specific help than we do now? I can't believe that, either.