Which parts can you ignore in the OT?

[WittyBanter]

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!

 

[ebia]

None of it.

It's not a question of ignoring the OT, but understanding what it is, and how it relates to us.

Somebody studying the Pakistan (say) but living elsewhere can neither ignore Pakistani laws nor attempt to keep them. A Christian needs to understand Israel's history to understand the climax of that history in Jesus, but they can't attempt to keep Israel's laws.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

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!

I don't view it as a history lesson at all. It may have historical aspects to it, but its not a reliable text book. As for touching a menstruating woman, depends on the person as a lot of people like it. I think a lot of the rules have and should be dropped, such as "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and such. The process of droping OT rules are more gradual and cultural. As society changes, so does its views on the Bible.

 

[WittyBanter]

EBIA:
Not sure I follow. So when one reads Leviticus, do you follow the rules or not as non-Israeli ?
For a simple example, do you follow Leviticus 11:9-12 about not eating shrimp or not? If you say that you must obey all the rules, you must follow this one. Otherwise, I can understand if you view the OT as more of a "here is how people lived and the laws they followed" kinda thing.

 

[gengwall]

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.

 

[WittyBanter]

sacredsin:

That is how I think most Christians view the OT. As culture changes (and we learn that menstrating women aren't REALLY unclean) the rules slip away and nobody talks about them. The pork eating is a fine example - I don't think Jesus ever said "yeah, pork is cool now".

 

[stan1980]

As for touching a menstruating woman, depends on the person as a lot of people like it.

Yeah, i think that is another example of how the author tries to impose what he sees as disgusting, onto the rest of us. I assume the author didn't much like fornicating with menstruating women (or even touching them in this case), just like i assume in other parts of the bible the author doesn't like fornicating with people of the same sex, so the author wrongly tries to impose his own standards on the rest of us. For shame.

 

[ebia]

EBIA:
Not sure I follow. So when one reads Leviticus, do you follow the rules or not as non-Israeli ?
For a simple example, do you follow Leviticus 11:9-12 about not eating shrimp or not? If you say that you must obey all the rules, you must follow this one.

It's not meaningful to say that you follow a law that doesn't apply to you. The laws were given for Israel to bring them to the point history when Jesus was crucified. They are part of a different act in the story to the one I live in. But the alternative to keeping them isn't ignorning them - I need to understand them because they are a part of the way God worked through Israel and we can't live our part of the story in a way that is in character with what went before without immersing ourselves in the story so far.

Otherwise, I can understand if you view the OT as more of a "here is how people lived and the laws they followed" kinda thing.

Sort of, yes.

 

[gengwall]

Yeah, i think that is another example of how the author tries to impose what he sees as disgusting, onto the rest of us. I assume the author didn't much like fornicating with menstruating women (or even touching them in this case), just like i assume in other parts of the bible the author doesn't like fornicating with people of the same sex, so the author wrongly tries to impose his own standards on the rest of us. For shame.

I view Leviticus 18:19 differently. The entire list of prohibitions in Lev 18 are exclusively extra-marital. I am not sure what was going on with men approaching women who were having their period but it appears to me at least that this was something outside of the marriage bed. Leviticus 15:24 deals with inter-marital relations when a woman is having her period and only addresses it as a sanitary issue, not a sin issue.

 

[rppearso]

sacredsin:

That is how I think most Christians view the OT. As culture changes (and we learn that menstrating women aren't REALLY unclean) the rules slip away and nobody talks about them. The pork eating is a fine example - I don't think Jesus ever said "yeah, pork is cool now".

Jesus said its not what a man puts in his mouth that makes him unclean its what comes out of his mouth. This was in reference to eating with dirty hands from things that were in the field.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Yeah, i think that is another example of how the author tries to impose what he sees as disgusting, onto the rest of us. I assume the author didn't much like fornicating with menstruating women (or even touching them in this case), just like i assume in other parts of the bible the author doesn't like fornicating with people of the same sex, so the author wrongly tries to impose his own standards on the rest of us. For shame.

I agree whole-heartedly. Thats my opinion of the contradictions of incest between earlier books and Leviticus as well as societal changes.

 

[gengwall]

I agree whole-heartedly. Thats my opinion of the contradictions of incest between earlier books and Leviticus as well as societal changes.

??? What contradictions of incest?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

From recent research I have conducted, the earlier books have a lot about incest, whether its incest through marriage or blood. It talks of moses being born from it and other early biblical characters taking place in it or products of it. Its not really condemned into Leviticus.

 

[WittyBanter]

Incest? Well, the story of Lot's daughters comes to mind. They did shag their dad after getting him drunk, and God never seemed to remark on it.

Then again, I don't think Bible really condmens incest (could be wrong here) so it's not really contradictory.

 

[gengwall]

From recent research I have conducted, the earlier books have a lot about incest, whether its incest through marriage or blood. It talks of moses being born from it and other early biblical characters taking place in it or products of it. Its not really condemned into Leviticus.

Well, I don't want to get off topic but it would be interesting to see which passages in particular you believe portray an approved incestuous relationship, especially one that contradicts Leviticus. I am quite certain that, outside of the first generation or so where incest was inevitable, God has never approved of the kind of relations Leviticus is addressing (parent-child; grandparent-grandchild; sibling; and "in-law" adultery)

 

[stan1980]

I view Leviticus 18:19 differently. The entire list of prohibitions in Lev 18 are exclusively extra-marital. I am not sure what was going on with men approaching women who were having their period but it appears to me at least that this was something outside of the marriage bed. Leviticus 15:24 deals with inter-marital relations when a woman is having her period and only addresses it as a sanitary issue, not a sin issue.

Fair enough, you are most probably right. It does however highlight that parts, at least, of the OT are in there simply because of a lack of understanding by man, a mistake which you wouldn't expect God to make. Given that, it is hard to give any credibility that the rules set in the OT were Gods rules.

 

[gengwall]

Incest? Well, the story of Lot's daughters comes to mind. They did shag their dad after getting him drunk, and God never seemed to remark on it.

Then again, I don't think Bible really condmens incest (could be wrong here) so it's not really contradictory.

God most certainly did not approve of Lot's daughter's behavior (nor Lot's drunkeness). I am continually amazed at how people confuse biblical history with biblical teaching. Just because someone did it in the bible, even someone who was used by God, doesn't mean God approves of it.

 

[gengwall]

Fair enough, you are most probably right. It does however highlight that parts, at least, of the OT are in there simply because of a lack of understanding by man, a mistake which you wouldn't expect God to make. Given that, it is hard to give any credibility that the rules set in the OT were Gods rules.

Not for me.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Well, I don't want to get off topic but it would be interesting to see which passages in particular you believe portray an approved incestuous relationship, especially one that contradicts Leviticus. I am quite certain that, outside of the first generation or so where incest was inevitable, God has never approved of the kind of relations Leviticus is addressing (parent-child; grandparent-grandchild; sibling; and "in-law" adultery)

Eh not necessarily approved, but not condemned either.

Genesis 19:34-38

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [g] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

No condemnation and they went on to build different tribes.

Genesis 20: 12

12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.

That was Abraham.

Exodus 6:20

20 Amram married his father's sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years.

2 Samuel 9: 9-14

9 Then she took the pan and served him the bread, but he refused to eat.
"Send everyone out of here," Amnon said. So everyone left him. 10 Then Amnon said to Tamar, "Bring the food here into my bedroom so I may eat from your hand." And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. 11 But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, "Come to bed with me, my sister." 12 "Don't, my brother!" she said to him. "Don't force me. Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don't do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you." 14 But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

Genesis 24:15

15 Before he had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder. She was the daughter of Bethuel son of Milcah, who was the wife of Abraham's brother Nahor.
....

Genesis 24:67

67 Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

 

[stan1980]

Not for me.

Why? I find it very hard to understand how an intelligent person (which i think you are) can give credibility to this book, so help me understand