Which parts can you ignore in the OT?

[BigBadWlf]

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:



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:



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?

This is exactly what I was referring to in post #29

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”

 

[Beanieboy]

From a Christian perspective, I'm unsure. From a Buddhist perspective, it seems to be a smorgasborg. Pick and choose, and make your own salad. People don't follow Leviticus, and probably have never read it, save for two verses.

So, basically, the things to follow are the things that apply to others in order to condemn them, even when it is taken out of context, and even though Christ did not come to condemn but to save.

I have had some "christians" quote things, such as
Psalm 58:10
The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.

She then told me how she was going to bathe in my blood because I was wicked.

I believe that man often creates God in their own image, which is a blasphemy.

 

[ReverendDG]

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.

there isn't any division, to be a follower of god back then you have to follow all of them. you really believe that theres categories? if there are, why can't you point them out
if you ask a rabbi though, they say the only division is the suspension of temple rules, namely they can't preform sacrifices in the temple , because there isn't one
but stuff about shellfish, pork and rounding the head still count, because theres no issues about this

now you can easily pick out the ones that are suspended, because they have to do with the temple. but what exactly shows you that you don't have to follow rules? jewish people at least can show this, christians really just dodge the issue

 

[ReverendDG]

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:

thats good, our understanding of israelite belief is sometimes wrong

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.

well clean and unclean, are morality laws, they all are pretty much, they have differing contexts but they all are 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:

i think the translation is what gets most people, what does "clean" mean? its not physically clean, its spiritually clean or morally clean.
so more than likely the jews considered lepers unclean, because they correlated them being lepers with being cursed by god

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.

and a jew would argue that they show their righteousness,faith, and love of god through following 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:

well yes, according to christian belief, the OT shouldn't be followed, but for some reason christians think the law matter, but paul says people don't need to
christians sometimes don't even know their own theology

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?

i find christian belief shows a bit of change over time, is it about faith? love? or repentance?

 

[quatona]

There is no need to ignore any of them. There´s plenty of space for interpreting them so they match your ideas.

 

[pekkle]

I read a verse last night where Jesus said all the laws still apply and must be follow.

Also that one where he says unless you hate your family you cannot follow him.

And how if he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.

 

[Beanieboy]

I read a verse last night where Jesus said all the laws still apply and must be follow.

Also that one where he says unless you hate your family you cannot follow him.

And how if he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword.

And yet, he tells peter whomever lives by the sword dies by the sword.

 

[rambot]

I see the OT has a chronicle of events that show the relationship between God and his chosen people (Israelites); not too much more, not too much less.

 

[Beanieboy]

I see the OT has a chronicle of events that show the relationship between God and his chosen people (Israelites); not too much more, not too much less.

That's a really good point. I'm not sure what one is to learn from it. I remember reading the story of Sodom and Gommorah, since it is quoted so often.

After Lot and his daughters leave S&G, leaving his wife who is a salt lick, the daughters conspire together to give their father an heir by getting their father drunk, and then having sex with him. It's not once, but two successive nights.

And we are to learn from this that...?
Moral people "keep it in the family"?

And this is the story that people use to talk about morality? The bible lists the sins of S&G, and yet, ask the average Christian, and they will say that it was due to homosexuality, and will even disagree that it wasn't a choice they were offering Lot's guests.

If you read Job, God and Satan basically have a contest with Job's life, including killing his family, his livestock, his house, and making him have boils. Even though he was healed, and had a new family, can one really replace one's family?

And this teaches us what? That God was teaching Satan a lesson, and Lot got in the way?

Much of it makes you go hmmmmm.

 

[stan1980]

And yet, he tells peter whomever lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Better than being crucified I suppose.

 

[Beanieboy]

I once had someone tell me that Jesus came not in peace, but with a sword, so he didn't believe that Christians were called to make peace but war.

And yet, Christ taught to turn the other cheek, and is called The Prince of Peace.

I'm also amazed how many times "an eye for an eye" is quoted when speaking about justice. What that means is - you take my eye, I take yours. It's full of vengence, more than forgiveness and mercy. And yet, God forgives us, and grants us mercy, but we can't grant it to others who wrong us.

As we usually see in gang violence, violence is a chain. A Crip kills a Blood. They retaliate, and feel justified. The second death is then avenged by killing a Crip, who then retaliates, and so on. Turning the other cheek breaks that chain.

If God commands, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", are you allowed to kill if someone kills someone you know? Do the laws suddenly get laid down in the name of vengence?

I've read of many Christians who will claim that they own a gun, support self-defense, war, etc.
Jesus was whipped, but had the power to defend himself, and did not.
He had the power not to be put on a cross. He didn't need a gun. Who could have simply done it with a command.
And yet, he didn't, and in so, defeated death itself.

Ghandi understood this approach, and he was Hindu.

Imagine Christ saying, "You have heard, 'an eye for an eye' but I tell you, turn the other cheek," then slapping Peter on the face, and have Peter respond with an equally hard if not harder slap, and say, "an eye for an eye, Jesus."

I think those who choose to listen to the OT while ignoring what Christ said are, themselves, denying Christ.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Christians supporting war/gun ownership/etc. is not a contradiction (though no one understands the separation of religion from government for some reason)

I do agree that those that wield the OT like a sword and ignore Christ do in a sense deny Christ themselves.

The problem is Christianity is deeper than a "set of rules" and if you diminish it to that, you've lost what it means anyway.

 

[InStillness]

Excellent topic!

I've thought of this as of late as I've been reading 1st Corinthians. I've also been using Halley's Bible Commentary, a great book to reference when reading a particular chapter. The entire book of course, is Paul's letters to the church in Corinth, which was torn apart by strife and falling away regarding licentious behavior. I didn't know that Corinth's deity was Venus, which would make sense as to why evil behavior was so prominent there according to Paul.

1st Corinthians 11:4-5 is Paul's exhortation that women should keep their hair covered. According to the Halley reader, it was very common at the time, for women to keep their hair covered, much like Muslim women do with the burqa. His specific guidance is:

v.4:But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

v.5:For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Now, here is the quandry. Do we still have to follow this rule? Would anyone seriously maintain that women should wear burqas or that they can't cut their hair? Paul's advice to me, looks to be culture specific, but can be applied in a broader sense to our present day culture. To me, the larger point of Paul's admonition is that modesty is something that christian women should strive for in a heathen culture. Short hair is modest for women in our culture and thus, would be fine. I'm not certain if standards of dress or other flaunting accessories are, but that's just me.:o

So, would someone please explain to me why Paul's commentary should be followed letter by letter to a "T" in our culture, that unlike the era he lived in, does not have a social standard about women's hair being covered? Could we still not follow his admonition for modesty in deciding that for ourselves? And in stating this, do I fall in the relativst camp, or that of the reductio ad absurdum?

Still pondering, still reading, still praying.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Excellent topic!

I've thought of this as of late as I've been reading 1st Corinthians. I've also been using Halley's Bible Commentary, a great book to reference when reading a particular chapter. The entire book of course, is Paul's letters to the church in Corinth, which was torn apart by strife and falling away regarding licentious behavior. I didn't know that Corinth's deity was Venus, which would make sense as to why evil behavior was so prominent there according to Paul.

1st Corinthians 11:4-5 is Paul's exhortation that women should keep their hair covered. According to the Halley reader, it was very common at the time, for women to keep their hair covered, much like Muslim women do with the burqa. His specific guidance is:



Now, here is the quandry. Do we still have to follow this rule? Would anyone seriously maintain that women should wear burqas or that they can't cut their hair? Paul's advice to me, looks to be culture specific, but can be applied in a broader sense to our present day culture. To me, the larger point of Paul's admonition is that modesty is something that christian women should strive for in a heathen culture. Short hair is modest for women in our culture and thus, would be fine. I'm not certain if standards of dress or other flaunting accessories are, but that's just me.:o

So, would someone please explain to me why Paul's commentary should be followed letter by letter to a "T" in our culture, that unlike the era he lived in, does not have a social standard about women's hair being covered? Could we still not follow his admonition for modesty in deciding that for ourselves? And in stating this, do I fall in the relativst camp, or that of the reductio ad absurdum?

Still pondering, still reading, still praying.

You have to look at the tradition deeper than just to day it was a blanket cultural tradition:

Daas Yehudis is the term that refers to a custom of modesty for women that is accepted by a predominance of them in a given society. If a woman transgresses one of these customs, she is liable for the transgression of Daas Yehudis, a Halacha that is relative to community standards.
Daas Yehudis is a modesty issue which has always been relative to one's environment. It is designed to protect us from violating Issurei Erva, those laws about sexual conduct which are biblically mandated. By definition, Tznius (modesty) in dress is that which is communally perceived as such.
I believe Daas Yehudis is based on a culturally determined mindset. For example, if one becomes accustomed to rarely if ever seeing anything but the eyes of a woman then exposure to the face may very well be titillating. This is the case in some Muslim cultures. So, even though the face is not normally titillating in western societies dressing that way in a Muslim culture would be considered immodest and a source of temptation.
This provides at least the possibility that in another time and another place, uncovering hair would not be a violation of Daas Yehudis.

 

[TrueColors]

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!

In my understanding, scripture as a whole, shows man the impossibility of attaining salvation by 'rules'. When Jesus instituted a New Covenant, it was with the intent of showing mankind that salvation is by faith in the atoning work of Jesus alone, and that we could fulfill the will of God in HIS strength, through the Spirit of God.

 

[InStillness]

You have to look at the tradition deeper than just to day it was a blanket cultural tradition:

Daas Yehudis is the term that refers to a custom of modesty for women that is accepted by a predominance of them in a given society. If a woman transgresses one of these customs, she is liable for the transgression of Daas Yehudis, a Halacha that is relative to community standards.
Daas Yehudis is a modesty issue which has always been relative to one's environment. It is designed to protect us from violating Issurei Erva, those laws about sexual conduct which are biblically mandated. By definition, Tznius (modesty) in dress is that which is communally perceived as such.
I believe Daas Yehudis is based on a culturally determined mindset. For example, if one becomes accustomed to rarely if ever seeing anything but the eyes of a woman then exposure to the face may very well be titillating. This is the case in some Muslim cultures. So, even though the face is not normally titillating in western societies dressing that way in a Muslim culture would be considered immodest and a source of temptation.
This provides at least the possibility that in another time and another place, uncovering hair would not be a violation of Daas Yehudis.

Thank you for your kind post, you provide a strong argument as to why context is important, as opposed to just following scripture to a "T" without regard to local protocol at the time.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Thank you for your kind post, you provide a strong argument as to why context is important, as opposed to just following scripture to a "T" without regard to local protocol at the time.

that's why I hate it when people say __________ is truth because the bible says it (and fail to look into the language, culture and such). It may well not say _______ at all.

NP

 

[Merlin]

It's simple really.
as the book of Acts puts it:

Laws to follow Acts 15:

In the early church, discussion of which laws to follow came up

Acts 15:5 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 obey the law of Moses."

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some
time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message
of the gospel and believe.
8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them,
just as he did to us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that
neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
11 No!
We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

The consensus was:

Acts 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond
the following requirements:
Acts 15:29 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.

 

[keith99]

I once had someone tell me that Jesus came not in peace, but with a sword, so he didn't believe that Christians were called to make peace but war.

And yet, Christ taught to turn the other cheek, and is called The Prince of Peace.

I'm also amazed how many times "an eye for an eye" is quoted when speaking about justice. What that means is - you take my eye, I take yours. It's full of vengence, more than forgiveness and mercy. And yet, God forgives us, and grants us mercy, but we can't grant it to others who wrong us.

As we usually see in gang violence, violence is a chain. A Crip kills a Blood. They retaliate, and feel justified. The second death is then avenged by killing a Crip, who then retaliates, and so on. Turning the other cheek breaks that chain.

If God commands, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", are you allowed to kill if someone kills someone you know? Do the laws suddenly get laid down in the name of vengence?

I've read of many Christians who will claim that they own a gun, support self-defense, war, etc.
Jesus was whipped, but had the power to defend himself, and did not.
He had the power not to be put on a cross. He didn't need a gun. Who could have simply done it with a command.
And yet, he didn't, and in so, defeated death itself.

Ghandi understood this approach, and he was Hindu.

Imagine Christ saying, "You have heard, 'an eye for an eye' but I tell you, turn the other cheek," then slapping Peter on the face, and have Peter respond with an equally hard if not harder slap, and say, "an eye for an eye, Jesus."

I think those who choose to listen to the OT while ignoring what Christ said are, themselves, denying Christ.

Context and correct translation matter.

Thou shalt not Kill is an incorrect translation. Thou shalt no tmurder is more correct.

In context 'An eye for an eye' is not an endorcement of vengence but a limit on vengence. The historical context is one girl raped resulting an an entire village killed. Or a life for an insult.

 

[Merlin]

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

I suppose
Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

just isn't penalty enough for you?